Chess Openings

Contents

1 Overview 1
1.1 Chess opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Aims of the opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Opening repertoires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.3 Opening nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.4 Classification of chess openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 e4 Openings 10
2.1 King’s Pawn Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1 Details about the move and the game plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.2 Popular continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.3 Uncommon continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.4 Rare continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Open Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3 Examples of Open Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Semi-Open Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Popular defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.2 List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 e4 Openings – King’s Knight Openings 15

i
ii CONTENTS

3.1 King’s Knight Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1.1 Main line: 2...Nc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2 Other Black defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Ruy Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.3 Morphy Defence: 3...a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.4 Black defences other than 3...a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.1 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.2 Barendregt Variation: 5.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.3 Endgame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4 Italian Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.1 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.2 Uncommon Black third moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5 Hungarian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.1 4.d4 exd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.2 4.d4 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6 Two Knights Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6.1 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6.2 COTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.4 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.6.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.7 Fried Liver Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.7.1 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CONTENTS iii

3.7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.7.3 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.7.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.8 Giuoco Piano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.8.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.8.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.8.3 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.9 Evans Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.9.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.9.2 General remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.9.3 Bishop retreats after accepting the gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.9.4 References in Popular Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.9.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.9.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.9.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.9.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.10 Italian Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.10.1 4...Bxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.10.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.10.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.11 Irish Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.11.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.11.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.11.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.11.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.12 Jerome Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.12.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.12.2 Illustrative game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.12.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.12.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.13 Blackburne Shilling Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.13.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.13.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.13.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.13.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.13.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.14 Scotch Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.14.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.14.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.14.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
iv CONTENTS

3.14.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.14.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.14.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.15 Ponziani Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.15.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.15.2 Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.15.3 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.15.4 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.15.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.15.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.15.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.15.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.16 Inverted Hungarian Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.16.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.16.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.16.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.17 Konstantinopolsky Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.17.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.17.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.17.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.17.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.18 Three Knights Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.18.1 Black’s third move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.18.2 Reversed knight position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.18.3 Example game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.18.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.18.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.19 Four Knights Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.19.1 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.19.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.19.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.19.4 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.19.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.20 Halloween Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.20.1 5...Ng6 retreat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.20.2 5...Nc6 retreat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.20.3 Halloween Gambit with colors reversed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.20.4 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.20.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.20.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.21 Philidor Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
CONTENTS v

3.21.1 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.21.2 Lines starting 3.d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.21.3 Line starting 3.Bc4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.21.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.21.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.21.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.21.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.22 Elephant Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.22.1 Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.22.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.22.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.22.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.23 Damiano Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.23.1 3.d4 and 3.Bc4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.23.2 3.Nxe5! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.23.3 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.23.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.23.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.24 Greco Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.24.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.24.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.24.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.24.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.25 Gunderam Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.25.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.25.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.25.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.26 Latvian Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.26.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.26.2 White’s third move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.26.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.26.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.26.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.27 Rousseau Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.27.1 White responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.27.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.27.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.27.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.28 Petrov’s Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.28.1 White’s third move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.28.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
vi CONTENTS

3.28.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.28.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.28.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.28.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4 e4 Openings – Sicilian Defence 62

4.1 Sicilian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.1 General concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.3 Open Sicilian: 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.4 2.Nf3 without 3.d4: White’s third move alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.5 2.Nf3: Black’s second move alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.6 Closed Sicilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.7 White’s second move alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.1.8 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.11 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2 Sicilian Defence, Alapin Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.1 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.2 Other tries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3 Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3.1 Yugoslav Attack: 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3.2 Classical Variation: 6.Be2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3.3 Levenfish Variation: 6.f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.4 Harrington–Glek Variation: 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.Qd2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.5 Other options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.6 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4 Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4.1 Main line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.2 Passmore Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
CONTENTS vii

4.5 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.5.2 Main line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.5.3 Black ...Qa5 lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.4 Chinese Dragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.5 Dragondorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.6 Sample game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6 Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6.1 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.6.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.6.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.6.4 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.6.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.7 Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.7.1 Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7.2 Keres Attack: 6.g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7.3 Classical Variation: 6.Be2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7.4 English Attack: 6.Be3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7.5 Other variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7.6 Question of move orders and the Najdorf Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.8 Chekhover Sicilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.8.1 Main line: 4...Nc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.8.2 Other continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.8.3 Example games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.8.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.8.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9 Wing Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9.1 In the Sicilian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9.2 In other openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.9.3 Illustrative Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.9.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.10 Smith-Morra Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.10.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
viii CONTENTS

4.10.2 Continuations overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.10.3 Morra Gambit Accepted: 3...dxc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.10.4 Morra Gambit Declined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.10.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.10.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.10.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.10.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.10.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5 e4 Openings – Other variations 90

5.1 Bishop’s Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.1.1 History and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.1.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.1.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.1.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2 Portuguese Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.1 Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3 King’s Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.3 ECO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.3.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.3.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.4 Fischer Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.4.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.4.2 Ideas behind the opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.4.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.4.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.5 Falkbeer Countergambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.5.1 Old Main line: 3...e4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.5.2 Nimzowitsch Counter Gambit: 3...c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.5.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.5.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.5.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.6 Rice Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.6.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.6.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.6.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
CONTENTS ix

5.6.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.7 Center Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.7.1 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.7.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.8 Danish Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.8.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.8.2 Main lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.8.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.8.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.8.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.8.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.9 Lopez Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.9.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.9.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.9.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.10 Napoleon Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.10.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.10.2 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.10.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.10.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.10.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.11 Parham Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.11.1 History and nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.11.2 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.11.3 Possible continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.11.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.11.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.11.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.12 Vienna Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.12.1 2...Nf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.12.2 2...Nc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.12.3 2...Bc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.12.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.12.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.12.6 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.13 Frankenstein-Dracula Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.13.1 Annotated moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.13.2 Competing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.13.3 Notable game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.13.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
x CONTENTS

5.13.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.14 Alapin’s Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.14.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.14.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.14.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.15 Diemer-Duhm Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.15.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.15.2 General themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.15.3 Main line: 2.d4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.15.4 Early deviations for White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.15.5 Early deviations for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.15.6 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.15.7 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.15.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.15.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.15.10 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.15.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.16 Caro-Kann Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.16.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.16.2 Main line: 2.d4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.16.3 Two Knights Variation: 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.16.4 Other lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.16.5 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.16.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.16.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.16.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.17 Pirc Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.17.1 General remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.17.2 Main line: 3...g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.17.3 Early deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.17.4 Sample games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.17.5 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.17.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.17.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.17.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.18 Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.18.1 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.18.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.19 Balogh Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.19.1 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.19.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
CONTENTS xi

5.19.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.19.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.20 Scandinavian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.20.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.20.2 Main line: 2.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.20.3 Alternatives to 2.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.20.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.20.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.20.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.20.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.21 Nimzowitsch Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.21.1 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.21.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.21.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.21.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.22 Alekhine’s Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.22.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.22.2 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.22.3 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.22.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.22.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.22.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.23 Modern Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.23.1 Main lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.23.2 2.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.3 2.c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.4 2.Nc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.5 Fischer’s suggestion: 3. h4!? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.6 Unusual White responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.7 Averbakh System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.8 Kavalek vs. Suttles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.23.10 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.24 Monkey’s Bum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.24.1 Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.24.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.24.3 Monkey’s Bum Deferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.24.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.24.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.24.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.25 Owen’s Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
xii CONTENTS

5.25.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5.25.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.25.3 Illustrative game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.25.4 Matovinsky Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.25.5 Guatemala Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.25.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.25.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.25.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.26 St. George Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.26.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.26.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.26.3 Illustrative game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.26.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.26.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.26.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6 d4 Openings 142
6.1 Queen’s Pawn Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.1.2 Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.1.3 Other continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.1.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.1.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.2 Closed Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.2.1 Specific openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.2.2 List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.2.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.2.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.3 Semi-Closed Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.3.1 Important openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.3.2 Uncommon openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.3.3 List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.3.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.3.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

7 d4 Openings – Queen’s Gambit Openings 146

7.1 Queen’s Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.1.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.1.3 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.1.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.2 Queen’s Gambit Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
CONTENTS xiii

7.2.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

7.2.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.2.4 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.2.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.3 Queen’s Gambit Declined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.3.1 General concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.3.2 Other lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.3.3 Black avoids 3...Nf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.3.4 Black plays 3...Nf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.3.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.3.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.3.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.4 Cambridge Springs Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.4.2 Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.4.3 Representative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.4.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.4.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.4.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.4.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.5 Tarrasch Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.5.1 Main line: 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.5.2 Swedish Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.5.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.5.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.5.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6 Marshall Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6.1 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6.2 4.Nf3! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6.3 3.cxd5 c6 4.dxc6 Nxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.7 Baltic Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.7.1 White responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.7.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.7.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.7.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.7.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.8 Slav Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
xiv CONTENTS

7.8.1 General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

7.8.2 Alternatives to 3.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.8.3 3.Nf3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.8.4 Alternatives to 4.Nc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.8.5 4.Nc3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.8.6 4...dxc4 – Alternatives to 5.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.8.7 Alapin Variation: 5.a4 Alternatives to 5...Bf5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.8.8 Mainline, Czech Variation: 5...Bf5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.8.9 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.8.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.9 Semi-Slav Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.9.1 5.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.9.2 5.Bg5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.9.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.10 Symmetrical Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.10.1 3.cxd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.10.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.11 Chigorin Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.11.1 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.11.2 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.11.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.11.4 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.11.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.12 Albin Countergambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.12.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.12.2 Main line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.12.3 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.12.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.12.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.12.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.12.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

8 d4 Openings – Indian Defence 163

8.1 Indian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.1.1 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.1.2 Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.1.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.1.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.1.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.2 Trompowsky Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.2.1 Main lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
CONTENTS xv

8.2.2 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

8.2.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.2.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.2.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.2.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.2.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.3 King’s Indian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.3.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
8.3.3 Sidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.3.4 Famous games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.3.5 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.3.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.3.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.3.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.4 King’s Indian Defence, Four Pawns Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.4.1 The main line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.4.2 The modern alternative 6...Na6!? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.4.3 Black varies on move 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.4.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.4.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.5 East Indian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.5.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.5.2 Fianchetto without c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.5.3 Example game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.5.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.6 Grünfeld Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.6.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.6.2 Exchange Variation: 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.6.3 Russian System: 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.6.4 Taimanov’s Variation with 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.6.5 Lines with 4.Bf4 and the Grünfeld Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.6.6 Neo-Grünfeld Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.6.7 Illustrative game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.6.8 Other variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.6.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.6.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.6.11 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.6.12 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.7 Grünfeld Defence, Nadanian Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.7.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
xvi CONTENTS

8.7.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

8.7.3 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.7.4 Example games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.7.5 Modified versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.7.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.7.7 Notes and references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.7.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.7.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.8 Queen’s Indian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.8.1 Main line: 4.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.8.2 Other lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.8.3 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.8.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.9 Neo-Indian Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.9.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.9.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.10 Torre Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.10.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.10.2 Torre Attack (ECO A48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.10.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.10.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.10.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.11 Nimzo-Indian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.11.1 General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.11.2 Rubinstein System: 4.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.11.3 Classical Variation: 4.Qc2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
8.11.4 Kasparov Variation: 4.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.11.5 Other variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.11.6 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.11.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.11.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.11.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.12 Bogo-Indian Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.12.1 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.12.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.12.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.12.4 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.13 Old Indian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.13.1 Main line: 3.Nc3 e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.13.2 Janowski Variation: 3.Nc3 Bf5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
CONTENTS xvii

8.13.3 3.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

8.13.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.13.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.14 Kieninger Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.14.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.14.2 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.14.3 Strategic and tactical themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.14.4 Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8.14.5 Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
8.14.6 Alekhine variation 3...Ng4 4.e4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
8.14.7 Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
8.14.8 Other possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
8.14.9 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
8.14.10 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
8.14.11 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
8.14.12 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
8.14.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.14.14 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.14.15 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.15 Black Knights’ Tango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
8.15.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.15.2 Basic ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.15.3 Possible continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.15.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.15.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

9 d4 Openings – Other variations 210

9.1 Catalan Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.1.2 Open Catalan, Classical Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.1.3 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.1.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.1.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.1.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.2 Halosar Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.2.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.2.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.2.3 Main line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.2.4 Fourth-move alternatives for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
9.2.5 Third-move alternatives for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
9.2.6 Related gambit ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
9.2.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
xviii CONTENTS

9.2.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

9.2.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.2.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.3 Diemer-Duhm Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
9.3.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
9.3.2 General themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
9.3.3 Main line: 2.d4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
9.3.4 Early deviations for White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.3.5 Early deviations for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9.3.6 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9.3.7 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9.3.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9.3.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9.3.10 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9.3.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9.4 Diemer-Duhm Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.4.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.4.2 General themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.4.3 Main line: 2.d4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
9.4.4 Early deviations for White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
9.4.5 Early deviations for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
9.4.6 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
9.4.7 ECO codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
9.4.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.4.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.4.10 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.4.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.5 London System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.5.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.5.2 Early play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.5.3 Example game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.5.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.5.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.5.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.6 Richter-Veresov Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.6.1 Incremental development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.6.2 The Veresov today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.6.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.6.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.6.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.6.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
CONTENTS xix

9.6.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

9.7 Benoni Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.7.1 Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.7.2 Old Benoni: 1.d4 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.7.3 Czech Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.7.4 Modern Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.7.5 ECO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.7.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
9.7.7 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
9.7.8 References and further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
9.8 Benko Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.8.1 Origin and predecessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.8.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.8.3 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.8.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.8.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.8.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9 Blumenfeld Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9.1 General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9.2 Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.9.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.10 English Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.10.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.10.2 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.10.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.10.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.10.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.11 Keres Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.11.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.11.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.11.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
9.11.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
9.11.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
9.12 Dutch Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
9.12.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
9.12.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
9.12.3 White continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
9.12.4 ECO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
xx CONTENTS

9.12.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

9.12.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
9.12.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
9.12.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
9.13 Staunton Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
9.13.1 Gambit accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.13.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.13.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.13.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.14 Queen’s Knight Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.14.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.14.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.14.3 Illustrative game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.14.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.14.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.15 Englund Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.15.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.15.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.15.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.15.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.15.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.16 Polish Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9.16.1 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9.16.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9.16.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9.17 Wade Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.17.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.17.2 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.17.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.17.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.17.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

10 Flank openings 246

10.1 Flank opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.1.1 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.1.2 Zukertort Opening (1.Nf3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.1.3 English Opening (1.c4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.1.4 Bird’s Opening (1.f4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10.1.5 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.1.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.1.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
CONTENTS xxi

10.2 Larsen’s Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

10.2.1 Popularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.2.2 Main lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
10.2.3 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.2.4 Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack (A06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.2.5 Example games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.2.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.2.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.2.8 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.2.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.3 English Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.3.1 Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.3.2 Transposition potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
10.3.3 ECO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.3.4 Depiction in cinema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.3.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.3.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.3.7 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.3.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.4 Bird’s Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.4.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.4.2 1...d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.4.3 From’s Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.4.4 Other Black responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
10.4.5 Popularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.4.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.4.7 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.4.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
10.4.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
10.5 Benko’s Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
10.5.1 Sample lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
10.5.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
10.5.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
10.5.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.6 Zukertort Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.6.1 Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.6.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.6.3 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.6.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.7 Réti Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
10.7.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
xxii CONTENTS

10.7.2 Classic method: 2.c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

10.7.3 Transpositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10.7.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10.7.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10.7.6 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

11 Irregular Openings 259

11.1 Irregular chess opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.1.1 Usage of the term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.1.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.1.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.1.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.1.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.2 Anderssen’s Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.2.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.2.2 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.2.3 Named variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.2.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.2.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.3 Ware Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.3.1 Opening idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.3.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.3.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.3.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.3.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.4 Sokolsky Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.4.1 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.4.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.4.3 Named Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.4.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.4.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.5 Saragossa Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.5.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.5.2 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.5.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.5.4 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.5.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.5.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.6 Mieses Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.6.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
11.6.2 Illustrative game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.6.3 Named Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
CONTENTS xxiii

11.6.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

11.6.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.7 Van 't Kruijs Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.7.1 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.7.3 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.7.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.8 Barnes Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.8.1 Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.8.2 Fool’s Mate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.8.3 A transposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.8.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.8.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.9 Grob’s Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.9.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.9.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.9.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.9.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.10Clemenz Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.10.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.10.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.10.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.11Desprez Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.11.1 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.11.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.11.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.11.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.12Durkin Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.12.1 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.12.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.12.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.13Dunst Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.13.1 Origin of names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.13.2 General remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.13.3 Possible continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.13.4 Transpositions to other openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
11.13.5 Sample games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
11.13.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
11.13.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
11.13.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
xxiv CONTENTS

11.14Amar Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

11.14.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
11.14.2 Named variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
11.14.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
11.14.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

12 Traps 274
12.1 Fool’s mate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
12.1.1 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
12.1.2 Similar traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
12.1.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.1.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.1.5 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.2 Scholar’s mate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.2.1 Avoiding Scholar’s Mate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.2.2 Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.2.3 Name in other languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
12.2.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
12.2.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
12.3 Elephant Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
12.3.1 The trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
12.3.2 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
12.3.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
12.4 Halosar Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
12.4.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
12.4.2 Main variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
12.4.3 Main line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
12.4.4 Fourth-move alternatives for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
12.4.5 Third-move alternatives for Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
12.4.6 Related gambit ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
12.4.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
12.4.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
12.4.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
12.4.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
12.5 Kieninger Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
12.5.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
12.5.2 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
12.5.3 Strategic and tactical themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
12.5.4 Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
12.5.5 Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
12.5.6 Alekhine variation 3...Ng4 4.e4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
12.5.7 Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
CONTENTS xxv

12.5.8 Other possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

12.5.9 Illustrative games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
12.5.10 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
12.5.11 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
12.5.12 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
12.5.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
12.5.14 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
12.5.15 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
12.6 Lasker Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
12.6.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
12.6.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
12.6.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
12.7 Légal Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
12.7.1 Natural move sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
12.7.2 Légal versus Saint Brie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
12.7.3 Other variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
12.7.4 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
12.7.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.7.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.7.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.8 Magnus Smith Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.8.1 The trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.8.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.9 Marshall Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12.9.1 The trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.9.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.10Monticelli Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.10.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.10.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.10.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.10.4 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.11Mortimer Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.11.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.11.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.11.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.12Noah’s Ark Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12.12.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12.12.2 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12.12.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12.13Rubinstein Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12.13.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
xxvi CONTENTS

12.13.2 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

12.13.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.14Siberian Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.14.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.14.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.14.3 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.15Tarrasch Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.15.1 Tarrasch Trap in the Open Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
12.15.2 Tarrasch Trap in the Steinitz Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
12.15.3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
12.15.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
12.16Würzburger Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
12.16.1 The trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
12.16.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
12.16.3 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

13 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses 307

13.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
13.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
13.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Chapter 1
Overview
1.1 Chess opening
Irrespective of whether they are trying to gain the upper
For a list of openings as classified by the Encyclopaedia
hand as White and equalize as Black or to create dynamic
of Chess Openings, see List of chess openings.
imbalances, players generally devote a lot of attention in
The starting position of chess
the opening stages to:[5]
A chess opening is the group of initial moves of a chess
game. Recognized sequences of initial moves are re-
ferred to as openings by White, or defenses by Black,
but opening is also used as the general term. There
are many dozens of different openings, and hundreds of
named variants. The Oxford Companion to Chess lists
1,327 named openings and variants.[1] These vary widely
in character from quiet positional play to wild tactical
play. In addition to referring to specific move sequences,
the opening is the first phase of a chess game, the other
phases being the middlegame and the endgame.
A sequence of opening moves that is considered stan-
dard (often catalogued in a reference work such as the
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings) is referred to as “the
book moves”, or simply “book”. These reference works
often present these move sequences in simple algebraic
notation, opening trees, or theory tables. When a game
begins to deviate from known opening theory, the players
are said to be “out of book”. In some opening lines, the
moves considered best for both sides have been worked
out for twenty to twenty-five moves or more. Some anal-
ysis goes to thirty or thirty-five moves, as in the classical
King’s Indian Defense and in the Sveshnikov and Najdorf
variations of the Sicilian Defense.[2] Professional chess
players spend years studying openings, and continue do-
ing so throughout their careers, as opening theory contin-
ues to evolve. Players at the club level also study openings
but the importance of the opening phase is smaller there
since games are rarely decided in the opening. The study
of openings can become unbalanced if it is to the exclu-
sion of tactical training and middlegame and endgame
strategy.[3]
A new sequence of moves in the opening is referred to
as a theoretical novelty. When kept secret until used in a
competitive game it is often known as a prepared varia-
tion, a powerful weapon in top-class competition.[4]
1
1.1.1 Aims of the opening
Common aims in opening play
1. Development: One of the main aims of the open-
ing is to mobilize the pieces on useful squares where
they will have impact on the game. To this end,
knights are usually developed to f3, c3, f6 and c6
(or sometimes e2, d2, e7 or d7), and both play-
ers’ king and queen pawns are moved so the bishops
can be developed (alternatively, the bishops may be
fianchettoed with a maneuver such as g3 and Bg2).
Rapid mobilization is the key. The queen, and to a
lesser extent the rooks, are not usually played to a
central position until later in the game, when many
minor pieces and pawns are no longer present.
2. Control of the center: At the start of the game, it
is not clear on which part of the board the pieces
will be needed. However, control of the central
squares allows pieces to be moved to any part of the
board relatively easily, and can also have a cramp-
ing effect on the opponent. The classical view is
that central control is best effected by placing pawns
there, ideally establishing pawns on d4 and e4 (or
d5 and e5 for Black). However, the hypermodern
school showed that it was not always necessary or
even desirable to occupy the center in this way,
and that too broad a pawn front could be attacked
and destroyed, leaving its architect vulnerable; an
impressive-looking pawn center is worth little un-
less it can be maintained. The hypermoderns instead
advocated controlling the center from a distance
with pieces, breaking down one’s opponent’s cen-
ter, and only taking over the center oneself later in
the game. This leads to openings such as Alekhine’s
Defense – in a line like 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4
d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 (the Four Pawns Attack), White
has a formidable pawn center for the moment, but
Black hopes to undermine it later in the game, leav-
ing White’s position exposed.
2 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW

3. King safety: The king is somewhat exposed in the bishops to blunt this advantage) and counterattack against
middle of the board. Measures must be taken to re- the weakened pawns on White’s queenside; both players
duce his vulnerability. It is therefore common for accept different combinations of advantages and disad-
both players either to castle in the opening (simulta- vantages. This idea was a doctrine of the Soviet school of
neously developing one of the rooks) or to otherwise chess.
bring the king to the side of the board via artificial A third objective, which is complementary to the previous
castling. ones and has been common since the 19th century, is to
4. Prevention of pawn weakness: Most openings lure the opponent into positions with which the player is
strive to avoid the creation of pawn weaknesses such more familiar and comfortable than the opponent. This
as isolated, doubled and backward pawns, pawn is- is usually done by transpositions, in which a game that
lands, etc. Some openings sacrifice endgame con- apparently starts with one opening can reach a position
siderations for a quick attack on the opponent’s po- that is normally produced by a different opening.[6][7]
sition. Some unbalanced openings for Black, in par-
ticular, make use of this idea, such as the Dutch and
the Sicilian. Other openings, such as the Alekhine 1.1.2 Opening repertoires
and the Benoni, invite the opponent to overextend
and form pawn weaknesses. Specific openings ac- The Perenyi Attack, which arises from the opening
cept pawn weaknesses in exchange for compensa- moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6
tion in the form of dynamic play. (See Pawn struc- 6.Be3 e6 7.g4 e5 8.Nf5 g6 9.g5 gxf5 10.exf5 d5 11.Qf3
ture.) d4. Played several times between grandmasters, but Lars
Bo Hansen does not recommend this to amateurs.
5. Piece coordination: As the players mobilize their
pieces, they both seek to ensure that they are work-
Most players realize after a while that they play certain
ing harmoniously towards the control of key squares.
types of positions better than others, and that the amount
6. Create positions in which the player is more of theory they can learn is limited. Therefore, most play-
comfortable than the opponent: Transposition is ers specialize in certain openings where they know the
one common way of doing this.[6][7] theory and which lead to positions which they favor. The
set of openings a player has specialized in is called an
Apart from these ideas, other strategies used in the opening repertoire. The main elements a player needs to
middlegame may also be carried out in the opening. consider in a repertoire are:
These include preparing pawn breaks to create counter-
play, creating weaknesses in the opponent’s pawn struc- • As White, whether to open with 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, or
ture, seizing control of key squares, making favourable 1.Nf3
exchanges of minor pieces (e.g. gaining the bishop pair),
• As Black, a defense against any of these openings
or gaining a space advantage, whether in the centre or on
the flanks.
A very narrow repertoire allows for deeper specialization
but also makes a player less flexible to vary against differ-
Top-level objectives ent opponents. In addition, opponents may find it easier
to prepare against a player with a narrow repertoire.[9]
At higher levels of competition, for many years the main The main openings in a repertoire are usually reasonably
objectives of opening play were to obtain the better po- sound, that is, they should lead to playable positions even
sition when playing as White and to equalize when play- against optimal counterplay. Unsound gambits are some-
ing as Black. The idea behind this is that playing first times used as surprise weapons, but are unreliable for a
gives White a slight initial advantage; for example, White stable repertoire. Repertoires often change as a player
will be the first to attack if the game opens symmetrically develops, and a player’s advancement may be stifled if
(Black mirrors White’s moves).[5] the opening repertoire does not evolve. Some openings
Since about the 1950s another objective has gradually be- which are effective against amateur players are less ef-
come more dominant. According to IM Jeremy Silman, fective at the master level. For example, Black obtains
the purpose of the opening is to create dynamic imbal- active play in return for a pawn in the Benko Gambit; am-
ances between the two sides, which will determine the ateur players may have trouble defending against Black’s
character of the middlegame and the strategic plans cho- activity, while masters are more skilled at defending and
sen by both sides.[8] For example, in the main line of the making use of the extra pawn. Some openings which are
Winawer Variation of the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 played between grandmasters are so complex and theoret-
d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3), White will try ical that amateur players will have trouble understanding
to use his bishop pair and space advantage to mount an them. An example is the Perenyi Attack of the Sicilian
attack on Black’s kingside, while Black will seek simpli- Defense (see diagram) which yields an immensely com-
fying exchanges (in particular, trading off one of White’s plicated and tactical position that even strong players have
1.1. CHESS OPENING 3

difficulty handling, and that is beyond the comprehension phant, and Hedgehog.
of most amateurs.[3] Many terms are used for the opening as well. In addi-
tion to Opening, common terms include Game, Defense,
Gambit, and Variation; less common terms are System,
1.1.3 Opening nomenclature Attack, Counterattack, Countergambit, Reversed, and In-
verted. To make matters more confusing, these terms are
Major changes in the rules of chess in the late fifteenth used very inconsistently. Consider some of the openings
century increased the speed of the game, consequently named for nationalities: Scotch Game, English Opening,
emphasizing the importance of opening study. Thus, French Defense, and Russian Game—the Scotch Game
early chess books, such as the 1497 text of Luis Ramirez and the English Opening are both White openings (White
de Lucena, present opening analysis, as does Pedro Dami- chooses to play), the French is indeed a defense but so is
ano (1512), and Ruy López de Segura (1561). Ruy the Russian Game. Although these do not have precise
Lopez’s disagreement with Damiano regarding the merits definitions, here are some general observations about how
of 2...Nc6 led to 3.Bb5 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6) being they are used.
named for him as the Ruy Lopez or Spanish Opening.[10]
Opening theory was studied more scientifically from the
1840s on, and many opening variations were discovered Game Used only for some of the oldest openings, for
and named in this period and later. Opening nomen- example Scotch Game, Vienna Game, and Four
clature developed haphazardly, and most names are his- Knights Game.
torical accidents not based on systematic principles. In
the early 1930s the nascent FIDE embarked on a project Opening Along with Variation, this is the most com-
to standardize opening nomenclature, culminating in the mon term.
publication of a short booklet in 1933, but this had little
impact.[11] Variation Usually used to describe a line within a more
general opening, for example the Exchange Varia-
The oldest openings tend to be named for geographic tion of the Queen’s Gambit Declined.
places and people. Many openings are named after na-
tionalities, for example Indian, English, Spanish, French, Defense Always refers to an opening chosen by Black,
Dutch, Scotch, Russian, Italian, Scandinavian, and Sicil- such as Two Knights Defense or King’s Indian De-
ian. Cities are also used, such as Vienna, Berlin, and fense, unless, of course, it has 'reversed' in front of
Wilkes-Barre. The Catalan System is named after the it, which makes it an opening for White. The term
Catalonia region of Spain. “defense” does not imply passivity; many defenses
For a more comprehensive list, see List of chess openings are quite aggressive (such as the King’s Indian De-
named after places. fence).

Gambit An opening that involves the sacrifice of ma-

Chess players’ names are the most common sources of
opening names. The name given to an opening is not al-
ways that of the first player to adopt it; often an opening isLatvian Gambit). The full name often includes Ac-
named for the player who was the first to popularize it or
to publish analysis of it. Eponymic openings include the
Ruy Lopez, Alekhine’s Defense, Morphy Defense, and
the Réti Opening. Some opening names honor two peo-
ple, such as the Caro–Kann.
For a more comprehensive list, see List of chess openings
named after people.
terial, usually one or more pawns. Gambits can be
played by White (e.g., King’s Gambit) or Black (e.g.,
cepted or Declined depending on whether the op-
ponent took the offered material, as in the Queen’s
Gambit Accepted and Queen’s Gambit Declined. In
some cases, the sacrifice of material is only tempo-
rary. The Queen’s Gambit is not a true gambit be-
cause there is no good way for Black to keep the
pawn (Ward 1999:10).

Countergambit A gambit played in response to an-

A few opening names are descriptive, such as Giuoco Pi-
other gambit, almost always by Black. Examples of
ano (Italian: quiet game). More prosaic descriptions in-
this include the Albin Countergambit to the Queen’s
clude Two Knights and Four Knights. Descriptive names
Gambit, the Falkbeer Countergambit to the King’s
are less common than openings named for places and peo-
Gambit, and the Greco Counter Gambit (the former
ple.
name of the Latvian Gambit).
Some openings have been given fanciful names, often
names of animals. This practice became more common System A method of development that can be used
in the 20th century. By then, most of the more common against many different setups by the opponent.
and traditional sequences of opening moves had already Examples include London System, Colle System,
been named, so these tend to be unusual or recently devel- Stonewall Attack, Réti System, Barcza System, and
oped openings like the Orangutan, Hippopotamus, Ele- Hedgehog System.
4 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW

Attack Sometimes used to describe an aggressive or fenses beginning with 1...c6 and 1...e6, often followed by
provocative variation such as the Albin–Chatard At- the center thrust 2...d5, are also popular. Defenses with
tack (or Chatard–Alekhine Attack), the Fried Liver an early ...d6 coupled with a kingside fianchetto are also
Attack in the Two Knights Defense, and the Grob commonly played.
Attack. In other cases it refers to a defensive sys-
The most important scheme of classifying chess openings
tem by Black when adopted by White, as in King’s for serious players is by ECO code, a series of 500 open-
Indian Attack. In still other cases the name seems ing codes assigned by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Open-
to be used ironically, as with the fairly inoffensive
ings. Although these codes are invaluable for the serious
Durkin’s Attack (also called the Durkin Opening).
study of the chess opening, they are not very practical for
Reversed, Inverted A Black opening played by White, a broad survey of the chess opening as the codes obscure
or more rarely a White opening played by Black. common structural features between related openings.
Examples include Sicilian Reversed (from the En- A simple descriptive categorization of the chess opening
glish Opening), and the Inverted Hungarian. The is King’s Pawn Openings, Queen’s Pawn Openings, and
Reti, King’s Indian Attack and Sicilian Reversed Others. Since these categories are still individually very
(from the English), and other “Black played by large, it is common to divide each of them further. One
White with an extra tempo,” often start with 1.Nf3 reasonable way to group the openings is:
or 1.c4.[12]
• Double King Pawn, Symmetric or Open Games
A small minority of openings are prefixed with “Anti- (1.e4 e5)[13]
". These are openings intended to avoid a particular line
otherwise available to one’s opponent, for example the • Single King Pawn or Semi-Open Games (1.e4 other)
Anti-Marshall (against the Marshall (Counter) Attack in
the Ruy Lopez) and the Anti-Meran Gambit (against the • Double Queen Pawn or Closed Games (1.d4 d5)
Meran Variation of the Semi-Slav Defense).
• Single Queen Pawn or Semi-Closed Games (1.d4
other)
1.1.4 Classification of chess openings
• Flank openings (including 1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.f4, and
others)
For a list of openings as classified by the Encyclopaedia
of Chess Openings, see List of chess openings. • Unusual first moves for White

The beginning chess position offers White twenty pos- The Indian systems (1.d4 Nf6) are the most important[14]
sible first moves. Of these, 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, and 1.c4 of the Semi-Closed Games, and warrant separate treat-
are by far the most popular as these moves do the most ment.
to promote rapid development and control of the center.
A few other opening moves are considered reasonable
but less consistent with opening principles than the four Open games: 1.e4 e5
most popular moves. The Dunst Opening, 1.Nc3, devel-
ops a knight to a good square, but is somewhat inflexi- Open Game
ble because it blocks White’s c-pawn; also, after 1...d5 Ruy Lopez: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
the knight is liable to be driven to an inferior square by Italian Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
...d4. (Note that after 1.Nf3 the analogous 1...e5? loses a Giuoco Piano: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5
pawn.) Bird’s Opening, 1.f4, addresses center control but Two Knights Defense: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6
not development and weakens the king position slightly. Scotch Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
The Sokolsky Opening 1.b4 and the King’s and Queen’s Petrov’s Defense: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
fianchettos: Larsen’s Opening 1.b3 and 1.g3 aid develop- King’s Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4
ment a bit, but they only address center control peripher- Vienna Game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3
ally and are slower than the more popular openings. The Bishop’s Opening: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4
eleven remaining possibilities are rarely played at the top Main article: Open Game
levels of chess. Of these, the best are merely slow such
as 1.c3, 1.d3, and 1.e3. Worse possibilities either ignore
White starts by playing 1.e4 (moving his king pawn two
the center and development such as 1.a3, weaken White’s spaces). This is the most popular opening move and it has
position (for instance, 1.f3 and 1.g4), or place the knights
many strengths—it immediately works on controlling the
on poor squares (1.Na3 and 1.Nh3). center, and it frees two pieces (the queen and a bishop).
Black has twenty possible responses to White’s opening The oldest openings in chess follow 1.e4. Bobby Fischer
move. Many of these are mirror images of the most pop- rated 1.e4 as “Best by test.” On the downside, 1.e4 places
ular first moves for White, but with one less tempo. De- a pawn on an undefended square and weakens d4 and f4;
1.1. CHESS OPENING 5

the Hungarian master Gyula Breyer melodramatically de- Semi-open games: 1.e4, Black plays other than 1...e5
clared that “After 1.e4 White’s game is in its last throes.”
If Black mirrors White’s move and replies with 1...e5, the Sicilian Defense
result is an open game. French Defense
Caro–Kann Defense
The most popular second move for White is 2.Nf3 attack-
Alekhine’s Defense
ing Black’s king pawn, preparing for a kingside castle, and
Pirc Defense
anticipating the advance of the queen pawn to d4. Black’s
Modern Defense
most common reply is 2...Nc6, which usually leads to the
Scandinavian Defense
Ruy Lopez (3.Bb5), Scotch Game (3.d4), or Italian Game
Nimzowitsch Defense
(3.Bc4). If Black instead maintains symmetry and coun-
Main article: Semi-Open Game
terattacks White’s center with 2...Nf6 then the Petrov’s
Defense results. The Philidor Defense (2...d6) is not pop-
ular in modern chess because it allows White an easy In the semi-open games White plays 1.e4 and Black
space advantage while Black’s position remains cramped breaks symmetry immediately by replying with a move
and passive, although solid. Other responses to 2.Nf3 are other than 1...e5. The most popular Black defense to
not seen in master play. 1.e4 is the Sicilian (1...c5), but the French (1...e6, nor-
mally followed by 2.d4 d5) and the Caro–Kann (1...c6,
The most popular alternatives to 2.Nf3 are the Vienna
normally followed by 2.d4 d5) are also very popular.
Game (2.Nc3), the Bishop’s Opening (2.Bc4), and the
The Pirc and the Modern are closely related open-
King’s Gambit (2.f4). These openings have some similar-
ings that are also often seen, while the Alekhine and
ities with each other, in particular the Bishop’s Opening
the Scandinavian have made occasional appearances in
frequently transposes to variations of the Vienna Game.
World Chess Championship games.
The King’s Gambit was extremely popular in the 19th
century. White sacrifices a pawn for quick development The Sicilian and French Defenses lead to unbalanced po-
and to pull a black pawn out of the center. The Vienna sitions that can offer exciting play with both sides hav-
Game also frequently features attacks on the Black center ing chances to win. The Caro–Kann Defense is solid
by means of a f2–f4 pawn advance. as Black intends to use his c-pawn to support his center
(1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5). Alekhine’s, the Pirc and the Modern
In the Center Game (2.d4) White immediately opens the
are hypermodern openings in which Black tempts White
center but if the pawn is to be recovered after 2...exd4,
to build a large center with the goal of attacking it with
White must contend with a slightly premature queen de-
pieces.
velopment after 3.Qxd4. An alternative is to sacrifice one
or two pawns, for example in the Danish Gambit. Other semi-open games have been studied but are less
common; see Semi-Open Game for details.
Many other variations after 1.e4 e5 have been studied;
see Open Game for details.
• 1.e4 c5 Sicilian Defense
• 1.e4 e5 Double King’s Pawn Opening or Open • 1.e4 e6 French Defense
Game
• 1.e4 c6 Caro–Kann Defense
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Ruy Lopez
• 1.e4 d5 Scandinavian Defense (also known as the
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Scotch Game Center Counter defense)

• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Italian Game • 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 Pirc Defense

• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 Four Knights Game • 1.e4 Nf6 Alekhine’s Defense

• 1.e4 g6 Modern Defense

• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 Petrov’s Defense

• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 Philidor Defense Closed games: 1.d4 d5

• 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Vienna Game
• 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bishop’s Opening
• 1.e4 e5 2.f4 King’s Gambit
• 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Center Game
• 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Danish Gambit
Closed Game
Queen’s Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4
Queen’s Gambit Declined: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
Slav Defense: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
Queen’s Gambit Accepted: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
Colle System: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3
London System: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4
Torre Attack: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5
6 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW

Main article: Closed Game • 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4 (a typical
move sequence) Stonewall Attack
The openings classified as closed games begin 1.d4 d5. • 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Colle System
The move 1.d4 offers the same benefits to development
and center control as does 1.e4, but unlike with King
Pawn openings where the e4-pawn is undefended af- Indian Defense Systems: 1.d4 Nf6
ter the first move, the d4-pawn is protected by White’s
queen. This slight difference has a tremendous effect on Indian Defence
the opening. For instance, whereas the King’s Gambit Nimzo-Indian Defence: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
is rarely played today at the highest levels of chess, the King’s Indian Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
Queen’s Gambit remains a popular weapon at all levels Grünfeld Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
of play. Also, compared with the King Pawn openings, Queen’s Indian Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6
transpositions among variations are more common and Modern Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6
critical in the closed games. Budapest Gambit: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
Old Indian Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6
The most important closed openings are in the Queen’s Main article: Indian Defense
Gambit family (White plays 2.c4). The Queen’s Gam-
bit is somewhat misnamed, since White can always re-
gain the offered pawn if desired. In the Queen’s Gambit The Indian systems are asymmetrical defenses to 1.d4
Accepted, Black plays ...dxc4, giving up the center for that employ hypermodern chess strategy. Fianchettos are
free development and the chance to try to give White an common in many of these openings. As with the closed
isolated queen pawn with a subsequent ...c5 and ...cxd5. games, transpositions are important and many of the In-
White will get active pieces and possibilities for the at- dian defenses can be reached by several different move
tack. Black has two popular ways to decline the pawn, the orders. Although Indian defenses were championed in
Slav (2...c6) and the Queen’s Gambit Declined (2...e6). the 1920s by players in the hypermodern school, they
Both of these moves lead to an immense forest of vari- were not fully accepted until Soviet players showed in
ations that can require a great deal of opening study to the late 1940s that these systems are sound for Black.
play well. Among the many possibilities in the Queen’s Since then, Indian defenses have been the most popular
Gambit Declined are the Orthodox Defense, Lasker’s De- Black replies to 1.d4 because they offer an unbalanced
fense, the Cambridge Springs Defense, the Tartakower game with chances for both sides. The usual White sec-
Variation, and the Tarrasch and Semi-Tarrasch Defenses. ond move is 2.c4, grabbing a larger share of the center
Black replies to the Queen’s Gambit other than 2...dxc4, and allowing the move Nc3, to prepare for moving the
2...c6, and 2...e6 are uncommon. e-pawn to e4 without blocking the c-pawn. Black’s most
popular replies are:
The Colle System and Stonewall Attack are classified as
Queen’s Pawn Games because White plays d4 but not c4.
• 2...e6, freeing the king’s bishop and leading into the
They are also examples of Systems, rather than specific
Nimzo-Indian Defence, Queen’s Indian Defence,
opening variations. White develops aiming for a par-
Bogo–Indian Defence, Modern Benoni, or regular
ticular formation without great concern over how Black
lines of the Queen’s Gambit Declined,
chooses to defend. Both systems are popular with club
players because they are easy to learn, but are rarely used • 2...g6, preparing a fianchetto of the king’s bishop
by professionals because a well-prepared opponent play- and entering the King’s Indian Defense or Grünfeld
ing Black can equalize fairly easily. The Stonewall is Defense, and
characterized by the White pawn formation on c3, d4, e3,
and f4, and can be achieved by several move orders and • 2...c5 3.d5 e6, the Modern Benoni, with an imme-
against many different Black setups. The position in the diate counterpunch in the center.
diagram and the move sequence given below are typical.
Advocated by Nimzowitsch as early as 1913, the Nimzo-
Other closed openings have been studied but are less com-
Indian Defence was the first of the Indian systems to gain
mon; see Closed Game for details.
full acceptance. It remains one of the most popular and
well-respected defenses to 1.d4 and White often adopts
• 1.d4 d5 Double Queen’s Pawn Opening or Closed move orders designed to avoid it. Black attacks the center
Game with pieces and is prepared to trade a bishop for a knight
to weaken White’s queenside with doubled pawns.
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Queen’s Gambit
The King’s Indian Defense is aggressive, somewhat risky,
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 Queen’s Gambit Accepted (QGA) and generally indicates that Black will not be satisfied
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD) with a draw. Although it was played occasionally as early
as the late 19th century, the King’s Indian was consid-
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 Slav Defense ered inferior until the 1940s, when it was taken up by
1.1. CHESS OPENING 7

Bronstein, Boleslavsky, and Reshevsky. Despite being • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 King’s Indian Defense
Fischer's favored defense to 1.d4, its popularity faded in (KID)
the mid-1970s. Kasparov's successes with the defense re-
stored the King’s Indian to prominence in the 1980s.
Other Black responses to 1.d4
Ernst Grünfeld debuted the Grünfeld Defense in 1922.
Distinguished by the move 3...d5, Grünfeld intended it as Dutch Defense
an improvement to the King’s Indian which was not con- Benoni Defense
sidered entirely satisfactory at that time. The Grünfeld Main article: Semi-Closed Game
has been adopted by World Champions Smyslov, Fischer,
and Kasparov.
Of the defenses to 1.d4 other than 1...d5 and 1...Nf6, the
The Queen’s Indian Defense is considered solid, safe, most important are the Dutch Defense and the Benoni
and perhaps somewhat drawish. Black often chooses the Defense. The Dutch, an aggressive defense adopted for a
Queen’s Indian when White avoids the Nimzo-Indian by time by World Champions Alekhine and Botvinnik, and
playing 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3. Black constructs a sound played by both Botvinnik and challenger David Bronstein
position that makes no positional concessions, although in their 1951 world championship match, is still played
sometimes it is difficult for Black to obtain good winning occasionally at the top level by Short and others. Another
chances. Karpov is a leading expert in this opening. fairly common opening is the Benoni Defense, which may
The Modern Benoni is a risky attempt by Black to unbal- become very wild if it develops into the Modern Benoni,
ance the position and gain active piece play at the cost of though other variations are more solid.
allowing White a pawn wedge at d5 and a central major- Several other uncommon semi-closed openings have been
ity. Tal popularized the defense in the 1960s by winning named and studied, see Semi-Closed Game for details.
several brilliant games with it, and Fischer occasionally
adopted it, with good results, including a win in his 1972
world championship match against Boris Spassky. Of- • 1.d4 c5 Benoni Defense
ten Black adopts a slightly different move order, playing • 1.d4 f5 Dutch Defense
2...e6 before 3...c5 in order to avoid the sharpest lines for
White.
The Benko Gambit is often played by strong players, and Flank openings (including English, Réti, Bird’s, and
is very popular at lower levels. Black plays to open lines White fianchettos)
on the queenside where White will be subject to consider-
able pressure. If White accepts the gambit, Black’s com- Réti Opening
pensation is positional rather than tactical, and his initia- King’s Indian Attack
tive can last even after many piece exchanges and well English Opening
into the endgame. White often chooses instead either to Bird’s Opening
decline the gambit pawn or return it. Main article: Flank opening

The Catalan Opening is characterized by White forming

a pawn center at d4 and c4 and fianchettoing his king’s
bishop. It resembles a combination of the Queen’s Gam-
bit and Réti Opening. Since the Catalan can be reached
from many different move orders, (one Queen’s Gambit
Declined-like move sequence is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3
Nf6 4.g3), it is sometimes called the Catalan System.
The flank openings are the group of White openings typ-
ified by play on one or both flanks. White plays in
hypermodern style, attacking the center from the flanks
with pieces rather than occupying it with pawns. These
openings are played often, and 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 trail only
1.e4 and 1.d4 in popularity as opening moves.

The most important Indian Defenses are listed below, but If White opens with 1.Nf3, the game often becomes one
many others have been studied and played; see Indian De- of the d4 openings (closed games or semi-closed games)
fense for details. by a different move order (this is called transposition),
but unique openings such as the Réti and King’s Indian
Attack are also common. The Réti itself is characterized
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 2.d5 e6 Modern Benoni
by White playing 1.Nf3, fianchettoing one or both bish-
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 Benko Gambit (or Volga ops, and not playing an early d4 (which would generally
Gambit) transpose into one of the 1.d4 openings).
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 Nimzo-Indian Defence The King’s Indian Attack (KIA) is a system of develop-
ment that White may use in reply to almost any Black
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 Queen’s Indian Defense opening moves. The characteristic KIA setup is 1.Nf3,
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Catalan Opening 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.Nbd2, and 7.e4, although
these moves may be played in many different orders. In
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 Grünfeld Defense fact, the KIA is probably most often reached after 1.e4
8 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW

when White uses it to respond to a Black attempt to 1.1.5 See also

play one of the semi-open games such as the Caro–Kann,
French, or Sicilian, or even the open games which usually • Outline of chess: Chess openings
come after 1.e4 e5. Its greatest appeal may be that by
• Chess opening book
adopting a set pattern of development, White can avoid
the large amount of opening study required to prepare to • List of chess openings
meet the many different possible Black replies to 1.e4.[15]
• List of chess openings named after people
The English Opening (1.c4) also frequently transposes
into a d4 opening, but it can take on independent char- • List of chess openings named after places
acter as well including the Symmetrical Variation (1.c4
c5) and the Reversed Sicilian (1.c4 e5). • List of chess gambits

Larsen’s Opening (1.b3) and the Sokolsky Opening • Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
(1.b4) are occasionally seen in grandmaster play. Benko
• Chess opening theory table
used 1.g3 to defeat both Fischer and Tal in the 1962
Candidates Tournament in Curaçao. • Middlegame
With Bird’s Opening (1.f4) White tries to get a strong grip • Endgame
on the e5-square. The opening can resemble a Dutch De-
fense in reverse after 1.f4 d5, or Black may try to disrupt • Checkmates in the opening
White by playing 1...e5!? (From’s Gambit).

• 1.b3 Larsen’s Opening 1.1.6 References

• 1.b4 Sokolsky Opening [1] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992). The Oxford
Companion to Chess (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. pp.
• 1.c4 English Opening 461–480. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• 1.Nf3 Zukertort Opening (characteristically fol- [2] Garry Kasparov, Modern Chess part 1, p. 353
lowed by fianchettoing one or both bishops, and
without an early d4) [3] Hansen, Lars Bo (October 7, 2008). How Chess Games
are Won and Lost. Gambit. ISBN 1-906454-01-9.
• 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.Nbd2, 7.e4
[4] Fine, R. (1952). The World’s Great Chess Games. Andre
King’s Indian Attack (KIA) (moves may be played
Deutsch (now as paperback from Dover). ISBN 0-679-
in many different orders) 13046-2.
• 1.f4 Bird’s Opening [5] Fine, R. (1990) [1st. Pub. 1943]. Ideas Behind the Chess
• 1.g3 Benko Opening Openings. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-1756-1.

[6] Mark Weeks. “Chess Opening Tutorial: Introduction to

1.d4”. about.com.
Unusual first moves for White
[7] Soltis, A. (2007). Transpo Tricks in Chess. Batsford.
Main article: Irregular chess opening ISBN 0-7134-9051-9. See review at “Transpo Tricks in
Chess – review”. chessville.com.
First moves other than the king pawn (1.e4), queen pawn [8] Jeremy Silman (1998). The Complete Book of Chess Strat-
(1.d4), or flank openings (1.b3, 1.b4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.f4, or egy. Silman-James Press. p. 3. ISBN 1-890085-01-4.
1.g3) are not regarded as effective ways to exploit White’s
[9] Webb, Simon (1979). Chess for Tigers. Oxford University
first-move advantage and thus are rarely played. Although
Press. ISBN 0-7134-8988-X.
some of these openings are not actually bad for White,
each of the twelve remaining possible first moves suf- [10] H.J.R. Murray, A History of Chess (Oxford: Clarendon
fers one or more of the following defects compared to Press, 1913), pp. 782–83, 814–15.
the more popular choices:
[11] Edward Winter, Chess Notes 3902, Openings nomencla-
ture, 21 August 2005
• too passive for White (1.d3, 1.e3, 1.c3, or 1.Nc3)
[12] Chess Opening Essentials 4, p. 11, ISBN 978-90-5691-
• gratuitously weakens White’s position (1.f3 or 1.g4) 308-3
• does little to aid White’s development or control the [13] Chess Openings for White Explained, p. 27, ISBN 1-
center (1.a3, 1.a4, 1.h3, or 1.h4) 889323-11-X
• develops a knight to an inferior square (1.Na3 or [14] Chess Opening Essentials 3, p. 38, ISBN 978-90-5691-
1.Nh3) 308-3
1.1. CHESS OPENING
[15] Larry Evans wrote of the King’s Indian Attack, “White’s
resilient setup is truly magical. It throws both players on
their own resources and eliminates the need of memoriz-
ing long-winded columns of analysis.” Larry Evans, The
Chess Opening for You, R.H.M. Press, 1975, p. 38. ISBN
0-89058-020-0.
Bibliography
• Collins, Sam (2005). “Understanding the Chess
Openings”. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-
28-X.
• De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings:
MCO-14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN
0-8129-3084-3.
Nick de Firmian is a three-time U.S. Chess
Champion. Often called “MCO-14” or sim-
ply “MCO”, this is the 14th edition of the
work that has been the standard English lan-
guage reference on chess openings for a cen-
tury. This book is not suitable for beginners,
but it is a valuable reference for club and tour-
nament players.
• Stefan Djuric, Dimitri Komarov, & Claudio Panta-
leoni, Chess Opening Essentials (4 volumes)
• Kasparov, Garry; Raymond Keene (1994) [1989].
Batsford Chess Openings 2. Henry Holt. ISBN 0-
8050-3409-9.
Garry Kasparov is the former World Chess
Champion from 1985 to 2000 and Raymond
Keene is a former British chess champion. This
book is often called “BCO 2” and is intended
as a reference for club and tournament players.
• Nunn, John (ed.); et al. (1999). Nunn’s Chess Open-
ings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
John Nunn is a former British Chess Champion
and a noted chess author. This book is often
called “NCO” and is a reference for club and
tournament players.
• Summerscale, Aaron (1999). A Killer Chess Open-
ing Repertoire. Globe Pequot. ISBN 978-1-85744-
519-0.
• Lane, Gary (1999). Victory in the Opening. Sterling
Pub Co Inc. ISBN 978-0-7134-8427-4.
• Sahovski Informator. Encyclopaedia of Chess Open-
ings
9
This is an advanced, technical work in five vol-
umes published by Chess Informant of Bel-
grade. http://www.sahovski.com/ It analyzes
openings used in tournament play and archived
in Chess Informant since 1966. Instead of us-
ing the traditional names for the openings and
descriptive text to evaluate positions, Informa-
tor has developed a unique coding system that
is language independent so that it can be read
by chess players around the world without re-
quiring translation. Called the “ECO”, these
volumes are the most comprehensive reference
for professional and serious tournament play-
ers.
• Scheerer, Christoph (2008). The Greatest Ever
Chess Opening Ideas. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-
1-85744-561-9.
• Seirawan, Yasser (2003). “Winning Chess Open-
ings”. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-349-7. An
elementary/introductory book.
• van der Sterren, Paul, Fundamental Chess Openings,
Gambit, 2009, ISBN 978-1-906454-13-5
• Ward, Chris (1999). “The Queen’s Gambit Ac-
cepted”. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-8467-5.
• Watson, John (2006). “Mastering the Chess Open-
ings, vol 1”. Gambit. ISBN 978-1-904600-60-2.
Three chapters of general opening principles;
open and semi-open games.
• Watson, John (2007). “Mastering the Chess Open-
ings, vol 2”. Gambit. ISBN 978-1-904600-69-
5.:Closed games and Indian defenses.
• Watson, John (2008). “Mastering the Chess Open-
ings, vol 3”. Gambit. ISBN 978-1-904600-98-5.
English Opening
• Watson, John (2010). “Mastering the Chess Open-
ings, vol 4”. Gambit. ISBN 978-1-906454-19-7.
1.1.7 External links
Chapter 2

e4 Openings

2.1 King’s Pawn Game Latvian Gambit and unusual moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3),
and C50 (includes the Hungarian Defence, the Giuoco
The King’s Pawn Game is any chess opening starting Pianissimo, and unusual moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
with the move: 3.Bc4).

1. e4
2.1.2 Popular continuations
[1]
It is among the most popular opening moves in chess.
The Black responses which are given one or more chap-
ters in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) are
2.1.1 Details about the move and the game given below, ranked in order of popularity according to
plan ChessBase.

White opens with the most popular of the twenty possible
opening moves. Although effective in winning for White
(54.25%), it is not quite as successful as the four next
most common openings for White: 1.d4 (55.95%), 1.Nf3
(55.8%), 1.c4 (56.3%), and 1.g3 (55.8%).[2] Since nearly
all openings beginning 1.e4 have names of their own, the
term “King’s Pawn Game”, unlike Queen’s Pawn Game,
is rarely used to describe the opening of the game.
Advancing the king’s pawn two squares is highly useful
because it occupies a center square, attacks the center
square d5, and allows the development of White’s king’s
bishop and queen. Chess legend Bobby Fischer said that
the King’s Pawn Game is “Best by test”, and proclaimed
that “With 1.e4! I win”.[3]
King’s Pawn Games are further classified by whether
Black responds with 1...e5 or not. Openings beginning
with 1.e4 e5 are called Double King’s Pawn Games (or
Openings), Symmetrical King’s Pawn Games (or Open-
ings), or Open Games – these terms are equivalent.
Openings where Black responds to 1.e4 with a move other
than 1...e5 are called Asymmetrical King’s Pawn Games
or Semi-Open Games.
The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) classifies all
King’s Pawn Games into volumes B or C: volume C if the
game starts with 1.e4 e6 (the French Defence) or 1.e4 e5;
volume B if Black answers 1.e4 with any other move. The
rare instances where the opening does not fall into a more
specific category than “King’s Pawn Game” are included
in codes B00 (includes the Nimzowitsch Defence and un-
usual moves after 1.e4), C20 (includes Alapin’s Open-
ing and unusual moves after 1.e4 e5), C40 (includes the
• 1... c5, the Sicilian Defence, is in modern practice
the most common continuation. The Sicilian De-
fence allows Black to fight for the center by prepar-
ing to meet a d2–d4 advance with ...c5xd4. The Si-
cilian is among the sharpest and most analyzed open-
ings in chess, and it has eighty chapters, B20–B99,
set aside for it in ECO.
• 1... e5 leads to the classical Open Games, which in-
cludes openings like the Ruy Lopez, King’s Gambit,
Italian Game, Scotch Game and Petrov’s Defence.
Also in this opening, Black is ready to meet a d2–d4
advance with e5xd4. These openings are covered in
chapters C20–C99 in ECO.
• 1... e6 is the French Defence, covered in chapters
C00–C19 in ECO. Black’s restrained response al-
lows White to play 2.d4. This gives White a spatial
advantage, with two pawns in the center to Black’s
one (after the usual 2... d5). One or the other
player will usually resolve the center tension, either
by Black playing ...dxe4 or White advancing with
e5. In the latter case, Black typically works to un-
dermine White’s pawn center with ...c5 and/or ...f6.
• 1... c6 is the Caro-Kann Defence, covered in chap-
ters B10–B19 in ECO. Like the French, this is also
considered to be a solid reply, but Black will often
need to surrender control over the center (e.g., after
2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Black usually plays 3...dxe4). On the
other hand, the light-squared bishop will usually not
wind up trapped behind its own pawns, as is com-
mon in the French.

10
2.1. KING’S PAWN GAME
• 1... d6 is usually played with the intention of playing
the Pirc Defence (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6, ECO
code B07-B09), a hypermodern defence in which
Black allows White to construct a dominant cen-
ter, with the intention of subverting it later. It can
also lead to the Modern Defence, Pribyl System or
Philidor Defence.
• 1... g6 is the Modern Defence. This can lead to
a related opening called the Pirc Defence (1.e4 d6
2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6). These openings allow White
to build up a pawn center with 2.d4, but Black will
develop the king’s bishop to g7 and strike back at
the center. These openings are covered in chapters
B06–B09 in ECO.
• 1... Nf6 is the Alekhine Defence, which invites below along with instances where they have been used by
White to attack the knight with 2.e5. Black is often strong players.
forced to spend time moving the knight several times
as it is chased around the board, all the while allow- Fred Defence after 2.exf5 Nf6
ing White to build up a broad pawn center. Black
counts on the pawns becoming overextended so that
he can later undermine them. The Alekhine is cov-
ered in chapters B02–B05 of ECO.
• 1... d5, the Scandinavian Defence or Center
Counter Defence, is a direct strike at the pawn at
e4, forcing the situation in the center. After 2.exd5
Qxd5 3.Nc3, however, White gains time by attack-
ing Black’s prematurely developed queen. Alterna-
tively, Black can play 2...Nf6 (the Marshall Gam-
bit), when White chooses between 3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4
with a spatial advantage, or 3.c4, when Black usu-
ally offers a gambit with either 3...c6 or 3...e6. The
Scandinavian is covered in chapter B01 in ECO.
2.1.3 Uncommon continuations
Apart from these eight responses, all other replies from
Black are covered together in ECO chapter B00 (“Un-
common King’s Pawn Opening”). A few of these are not
entirely obscure, and have received extensive analysis.
• 1... Nc6 is the Nimzowitsch Defence. After 2.d4,
there are two distinctive main lines: 2...e5, favored
by British grandmaster Tony Miles, and 2...d5, in-
troduced and often played by the influential Latvian-
Danish player and writer Aron Nimzowitsch (1886–
1935).
• 1... b6 is Owen’s Defence, preparing to develop
Black’s bishop to b7 to put pressure on White’s cen-
ter.
• 1... a6 is the St. George Defence. Black prepares
to advance on the queenside with 2...b5, but allows
White to occupy the center with 2.d4. The opening
gained some attention after Miles used it to defeat
Anatoly Karpov in 1980.[4]
11
• 1... g5 is the Borg Defence (“Grob” backwards) or
Basman Defence, often played by IM Michael Bas-
man. The move weakens the kingside severely, but
according to Modern Chess Openings (MCO), Black
is only somewhat worse.[5]
2.1.4 Rare continuations
The remaining replies to 1.e4 are very rare, and have
not received significant and serious attention by mas-
ters. MCO does not cover them, considering them so bad
as not to merit discussion.[6] These openings sometimes
lead to wild and exciting games, and are occasionally em-
ployed by weaker players to get better trained opponents
“out-of-book”. Some have exotic names, they are listed
• 1... a5, the Corn Stalk Defence. United States
chess player Preston Ware played the Corn Stalk
in eleven recorded tournament games from 1880 to
1882, winning four and losing seven.
• 1... Na6, called the Lemming Defence in Un-
orthodox Chess Openings, develops the knight to
an inferior square. The line has been suggested
against some older computers, hoping for 2.Bxa6
bxa6, when Black has the bishop pair and a quick
fianchetto as compensation for the doubled pawns.
However, Black has no justification for playing
1...Na6 if White avoids this line.
• 1... f5 is called the Duras Gambit in Unorthodox
Chess Openings, and is also known as the Fred De-
fence. This is a pawn sacrifice which gives Black a
lead in development after 2.exf5 Nf6, but without
much compensation for the sacrificed pawn. The
line was played three times in an exhibition match
between Ossip Bernstein and Oldřich Duras.
• 1... f6 is known as the Barnes Defence after Thomas
Wilson Barnes. This move is clearly inferior, taking
away the f6-square from the knight and weakening
Black’s kingside, although Barnes managed to defeat
Paul Morphy with this defence in 1858.[7][8]
• 1... h5, the Goldsmith Defence or Pickering De-
fence. All this move does is waste a tempo weaken-
ing the kingside.[9]
• 1... h6, called the Carr Defence in Unorthodox
Chess Openings. This defence has also been used
by Michael Basman, and is likely to transpose to the
Borg Defence (after 2.d4 g5).
• 1... Nh6, the Adams Defence or Wild Bull
Defence.[9]
• 1... b5 simply loses a pawn to 2.Bxb5.
12 CHAPTER 2. E4 OPENINGS

2.1.5 See also White has moved the king’s pawn forward two squares
and Black replies in kind, the result being an Open Game.
• Open Game Other responses to 1.e4 are termed Semi-Open Games, or
Single King’s Pawn Games.
• Semi-Open Game
The term Open Game can also refer to any chess posi-
• List of chess openings tion where ranks, files and diagonals are open, and usually
favor tactical gameplay. Bishops are generally stronger
than knights on an open board due to their ability to cover
2.1.6 Notes longer distances.

[1] Keene, Raymond; Levy, David (1993). How to Play the

Opening in Chess. ISBN 0805029370. 2.2.1 Analysis
[2] Chess Opening Explorer. Chessgames.com. Retrieved on White opens by playing 1.e4, which is the most popular
2013-09-27. opening move and has many strengths—it immediately
stakes a claim in the center, and frees two pieces (the
[3] Seirawan, Yasser. Winning Chess Brilliancies. Microsoft
queen and king’s bishop) for action. The oldest openings
Press. ISBN 978-1857443479.
in chess follow 1.e4. Bobby Fischer wrote that 1.e4 was
[4] Karpov–Miles, European Team Championship, Skara “best by test”. On the negative side, 1.e4 places a pawn on
1980 an undefended square and weakens the squares d4 and f4;
the Hungarian master Gyula Breyer melodramatically de-
[5] Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition, clared that “After 1.e4, White’s game is in its last throes.”
Random House, 2008, p. 384. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682- If Black keeps the symmetry by replying 1...e5, the re-
7. sult is an Open Game (Hooper & Whyld 1992) (Watson
2006:87–90).
[6] “Other defenses, such as 1...h5, are not considered as they
are simply too bad and need no discussion.” Modern Chess
Openings, 15th edition, p. 384.
2.2.2 Defenses
[7] Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy’s Games of Chess, Dover Pub-
lications, 1957, pp. 238–40. ISBN 0-486-20386-7 The most popular second move for White is 2.Nf3, at-
tacking Black’s king pawn, preparing to castle kingside,
[8] Morphy–Barnes, 1858 and preparing for d2–d4. Black’s most common reply is
2...Nc6, which usually leads to the Ruy Lopez (3.Bb5),
[9] Wall, Bill (April 30, 2006). “Unorthodox Openings”.
Italian Game (3.Bc4), or Scotch Game (3.d4), though
Archived from the original on 2009-08-03. Retrieved
3.Nc3 Nf6 (the Four Knights Game), often played in the
2009-04-24.
late 19th to early 20th century, or, less commonly, 3....g6
or ...Bb4, (the Three Knights Game), are other possibil-
ities. If Black instead maintains symmetry and counter-
2.1.7 References
attacks White’s center with 2...Nf6 then the Petrov’s De-
fense will usually result, though White can avoid the ex-
• de Firmian, Nick (2008). "Modern Chess Open-
tensive theory of the Petrov by playing 3.Nc3 if he wishes.
ings" (15th ed.). McKay. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-
7. The Philidor Defence, (2...d6), largely fell out of use after
World War I, as Black players sought positions offering
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992). The Ox- more counterchances than the solid, though passive game
ford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford Univer- which generally arises from this opening.
sity Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3
The Damiano Defense (2...f6) may be met by either
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings 3.Nxe5 or 3.Bc4, with advantage; the Elephant Gambit
(2nd ed.). Cardoza. ISBN 1-58042-072-9. (2...d5) and the Latvian Gambit (2...f5) are considered
very risky for Black, with the latter usually seen only in
correspondence play.

2.2 Open Game The most popular alternatives to 2.Nf3 are 2.f4 (the
King’s Gambit), 2.Nc3 (the Vienna Game), and 2.Bc4
(the Bishop’s Opening). These three openings have some
An Open Game (or Double King’s Pawn Opening) is similarities; some of the quieter lines in the Vienna and
a chess opening which begins with the following moves: Bishop’s Opening can transpose to positional variations of
the King’s Gambit Declined, when White plays f2–f4 be-
1. e4 e5 fore playing Nf3. The King’s Gambit was popular in the
2.2. OPEN GAME 13

nineteenth century with grandmaster and amateur alike. • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5!? Elephant Gambit
White offers a pawn for speedy development, as well as
to attack Black’s central outpost. The Vienna Game also • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 Philidor Defence
frequently features attacks on the Black center by means
of f2–f4. • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 Latvian Gambit
Philidor Defense after 2...d6
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 Damiano Defense

In the Center Game (2.d4), White immediately opens • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 Petrov’s Defence
the center, though if the pawn is to be recovered after
2...exd4, White must prematurely develop his queen. An • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 Greco Defense
alternative is to sacrifice one or two pawns by offering
the Danish Gambit (3.c3). The early development of • 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3?! Napoleon Opening
the queen in the Wayward Queen Attack (2.Qh5) or the
Napoleon Opening (2.Qf3) looks amateurish, though the • 1.e4 e5 2.f4 King’s Gambit
Wayward Queen Attack has been played in a grandmaster
tournament by no less a player than Hikaru Nakamura. • 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5!? Parham Attack
The Portuguese Opening (2.Bb5), Alapin’s Opening
(2.Ne2), Konstantinopolsky Opening (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.g3),
and Inverted Hungarian Opening (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2) are 2.2.4 See also
offbeat tries for White, though none promise any advan-
tage in the face of correct play. • Chess opening

• List of chess openings

2.2.3 Examples of Open Games
• Encyclopedia of Chess Openings
• 1.e4 e5 2.Bb5 Portuguese Opening
• King’s Pawn Game
• 1.e4 e5 2.c3 Lopez Opening
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Vienna Game • Semi-Open Game (1.e4 other)

• 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bishop’s Opening • Closed Game (1.d4 d5)

• 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Danish Gambit
• Semi-Closed Game (1.d4 other)
• 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Center Game
• Flank opening (1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.f4, and others)
• 1.e4 e5 2.Ne2 Alapin’s Opening
• Irregular chess opening
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Ruy Lopez
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Ponziani Opening
2.2.5 References
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 without 3...Nf6 Three
Knights Game
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Ox-
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 Four Knights Game ford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford Univer-
sity Press, ISBN 0-19-866164-9
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Italian Game
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 Giuoco Piano • Watson, John (2006), Mastering the Chess Openings,
vol 1, Gambit, ISBN 978-1-904600-60-2
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Evans Gambit
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 Hungarian Defense
2.2.6 Further reading
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 Two Knights Defense
• Djuric, Stefan; Komarov, Dimitri; Pantaleoni, Clau-
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Scotch Game dio (2008), Chess Opening Essentials, vol 1: the com-
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2 Inverted Hungarian Open- plete 1.e4, New in Chess, ISBN 978-90-5691-203-1
ing
• Flear, Glenn (2010), Starting Out: Open Games,
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.g3 Konstantinopolsky Opening Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-630-2
14 CHAPTER 2. E4 OPENINGS

2.3 Semi-Open Game • 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 Czech Defence

• 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 Pirc Defence

A Semi-Open Game is a chess opening in which White
plays 1.e4 and Black breaks symmetry immediately by • 1.e4 e6 French Defence
replying with a move other than 1...e5. The Semi-Open
Games are also called Single King Pawn, Asymmetri- • 1.e4 f5 Fred Defence
cal King Pawn, or Half-Open Games (or Openings), • 1.e4 f6 Barnes Defence
and are the complement of the Open Games or Double
King Pawn Games which begin 1.e4 e5. • 1.e4 Nf6 Alekhine’s Defence
• 1.e4 g5 Borg Opening
2.3.1 Popular defenses
• 1.e4 g6 Modern Defence
The most popular Black defense to 1.e4 is the Sicilian, • 1.e4 h5 Goldsmith Defence
but the French and the Caro-Kann are also very popular.
The Pirc and the Modern are also commonly seen, while • 1.e4 h6 Carr Defense
the Alekhine and the Scandinavian have made occasional
appearances in World Chess Championship games. The • 1.e4 Nh6 Adams Defence
Nimzowitsch is playable but rare, as is Owen’s Defense.
The Borg Defense and the St. George Defense are oddi-
2.3.3 See also
ties, although Tony Miles once used St. George’s Defense
to defeat then World Champion Anatoly Karpov. • Open Game (1.e4 e5)
The Sicilian and French Defenses lead to unbalanced po-
• Closed Game (1.d4 d5)
sitions that can offer exciting play with both sides hav-
ing chances to win. The Caro-Kann Defense is solid • Semi-Closed Game (1.d4 other)
as Black intends to use his c-pawn to support his center
(1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5). Alekhine’s, the Pirc and the Modern • Flank opening (1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.f4, and others)
are hypermodern openings in which Black tempts White
• Irregular chess opening
to build a large center with the goal of attacking it with
pieces.
Sicilian Defense 2.3.4 References
French Defense
Caro-Kann Defence • De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings:
Nimzowitsch Defence MCO-14, Random House Puzzles & Games, ISBN
Alekhine’s Defense 0-8129-3084-3
Pirc Defense
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Ox-
Modern Defense
ford Companion to Chess (second ed.), Oxford Uni-
Scandinavian Defense
versity Press, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
Owen’s Defense (Greek Defense)

2.3.2 List
• 1.e4 a5 Corn Stalk Defence
• 1.e4 a6 St. George Defence
• 1.e4 Na6 Lemming Defense
• 1.e4 b6 Owen’s Defence
• 1.e4 c5 Sicilian Defence
• 1.e4 c6 Caro-Kann Defence
• 1.e4 Nc6 Nimzowitsch Defence
• 1.e4 d5 Scandinavian Defence
• 1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 Balogh Defence
Chapter 3

e4 Openings – King’s Knight Openings

3.1 King’s Knight Opening Less common defenses

The King’s Knight Opening is a chess opening consist- A number of less popular continuations are possible.
ing of the moves: These openings are generally considered to be less sound
than those mentioned above.
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 • 2...Qe7 (the Gunderam Defense)

The opening is likely to continue into one of a number
of other named openings, depending mainly on Black’s
second move.
3.1.1 Main line: 2...Nc6
Most games (more than 80%) continue with 2...Nc6.
Some moves from here include:
• 2...Qf6 (the Greco Defence)
• 2...f6 (the Damiano Defence)
• 2...d5 (the Elephant Gambit)
• 2...f5 (the Latvian Gambit)
These openings are all categorized in the ECO under code
C40.

• 3. Bb5: Ruy Lopez

• 3...a6: Ruy Lopez, Morphy Defence (main 3.1.3 References
line)
• Batsford Chess Openings 2 (1989, 1994). Garry
• 3...Nf6: Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defence
Kasparov, Raymond Keene. ISBN 0-8050-3409-9.
• 3...d6: Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defence
• 3...f5: Ruy Lopez, Schliemann Defence
• 3...Bc5: Ruy Lopez, Classical Defence 3.1.4 External links
• 3. Bc4: Italian Game • Analysis at Chessgames.com
• 3...Bc5: Giuoco Piano
• 3...Nf6: Two Knights Defence
3.2 Ruy Lopez
• 3. d4: Scotch Game
• 3. Nc3: Three Knights Game For other uses, see Ruy Lopez (disambiguation).
• 3...Nf6: Four Knights Game
The Ruy Lopez (/rʊ.ɪ ˈloʊpɛz/; Spanish pronunciation:
• 3...g6: Three Knights Game (main)
[ˈruj ˈlopeθ/ˈlopes]), also called the Spanish Opening or
• 3. c3: Ponziani Opening Spanish Game, is a chess opening characterised by the
moves:

3.1.2 Other Black defenses

1. e4 e5
• 2...Nf6: Petrov’s Defense (C42) 2. Nf3 Nc6
• 2...d6: Philidor’s Defense (C41) 3. Bb5

15
16 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

The Ruy Lopez is named after 16th-century Spanish than 3...a6 are older and generally simpler, but the Mor-
bishop Ruy López de Segura. It is one of the most pop- phy Defence lines are more commonly played.
ular openings, with such a vast number of variations that
in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) all codes
from C60 to C99 are assigned to them. 3.2.3 Morphy Defence: 3...a6
Morphy Defence 3...a6
3.2.1 History
By far the most commonly played Black third move is
The opening is named after the 16th-century Spanish the Morphy Defence, 3...a6, which “puts the question”
bishop Ruy López de Segura, who made a systematic to the white bishop. The main point to 3...a6 is that af-
study of this and other openings in the 150-page book ter the common retreat 4.Ba4, Black will have the possi-
on chess Libro del Ajedrez, written in 1561. Although bility of breaking the eventual pin on his queen’s knight
it bears his name, this particular opening was included by playing ...b5. White must take some care not to fall
in the Göttingen manuscript, which dates from c. 1490. into the Noah’s Ark Trap, in which Black traps White’s
However, popular use of the Ruy Lopez opening did not king bishop on the b3-square with a ...a6, ...b5, and ...c4
develop until the mid-19th century, when Carl Jaenisch, pawn advance on the queenside. Ercole del Rio, in his
a Russian theoretician, “rediscovered” its potential. The 1750 treatise Sopra il giuoco degli Scacchi, Osservazioni
opening remains the most commonly used amongst the pratiche dell'anonimo Modenese (On the game of Chess,
open games in master play; it has been adopted by al- practical Observations by an anonymous Modenese), was
most all players during their careers, many of whom have the first author to mention 3...a6.[5] However, the move
played it with both colours. Due to the difficulty for Black became popular after it was played by Paul Morphy, and
to achieve equality,[1] a common nickname for the open- it is named for him. Steinitz did not approve of the move;
ing is “The Spanish Torture”. in 1889, he wrote, “on principle this ought to be disad-
In a Chess Notes feature article, Edward Winter provided vantageous as it drives the bishop where it wants to go”.
a collection of historical analytical articles (1840s–1930s) Steinitz' opinion did not prevail, however; today, 3...a6 is
focused on the Berlin Defence.[2] played in over 65 percent of all games beginning with the
Ruy Lopez.[6]

3.2.2 Basics Morphy Defence: alternatives to Closed Defence

At the most basic level, White’s third move attacks the
knight which defends the e5-pawn from the attack by the
f3 knight. White’s apparent threat to win Black’s e-pawn
with 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 is illusory—Black can respond
with 5...Qd4, forking the knight and e4-pawn, which will
win back the material with a good position. White’s
3.Bb5 is still a good move; it develops a piece, prepares
castling, and sets up a potential pin against Black’s king.
However, since White’s third move carries no immediate
threat, Black can respond in a wide variety of ways.
Traditionally, White’s objective in playing the Ruy Lopez
is to spoil Black’s pawn structure; either way Black recap-
tures following the exchange on c6 will have negative fea-
tures for him, though he thereby gains the bishop pair.[3]
White does not always exchange bishop for knight on c6,
however, but usually in the various forms of the Exchange
Variation (ECO C68–C69).
The theory of the Ruy Lopez is the most extensively de-
veloped of all open games, with some lines having been
analysed well beyond move thirty. At nearly every move
there are many reasonable alternatives, and most have
been deeply explored. It is convenient to divide the pos-
sibilities into two groups based on whether or not Black
responds with (3...a6), which is named the Morphy De-
fence after Paul Morphy, although he was not the origina-
tor of the line.[4] The variations with Black moves other
After 3...a6, the most commonly played line is the Closed
Defence, which goes 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7, discussed in
the two following sections. Alternatives to the Closed De-
fence described in this section are:
• 4.Bxc6 (Exchange Variation)
• 4.Ba4
• 4...b5 5.Bb3 Na5 (Norwegian Variation)
• 4...b5 5.Bb3 Bc5 (Graz Defence)
• 4...b5 5.Bb3 Bb7 (Caro Variation)
• 4...Bc5 (Classical Defence Deferred)
• 4...d6 (Steinitz Defence Deferred)
• 4...f5 (Schliemann Defence Deferred)
• 4...Nge7 (Cozio Defence Deferred)
• 4...Be7 5.Qe2 Nf6 (Worrall Attack)
• 4...Be7 5.0-0 Nf6 (Closed Defence)
• 4...Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 (Arkhangelsk De-
fence)
• 4...Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 (Modern
Archangel Defence)
• 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 (Møller Defence)
3.2. RUY LOPEZ 17

• 4...Nf6 5.0-0 d6 (Russian Defence) Norwegian Defence: 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 The Nor-
• 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 (Open Defence) wegian Variation (also called the Taimanov or Wing
Variation) (ECO C70), 3...a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 aims
• 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 (Closed Defence) to eliminate the white bishop but is generally consid-
• 4...Nf6 5.d4 (Mackenzie Variation) ered too time-consuming for Black. The usual continua-
tion is 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Nxb3, but the speculative sacrifice
• 4...Nf6 5.Qe2 (Wormald Attack) 6.Bxf7+?! Kxf7 7.Nxe5+, which drives the black king
• 4...Nf6 5.d3 (Anderssen Variation) out, has been played. However, with accurate play, Black
is supposed to be able to consolidate his extra piece.
This defence has been known since the 1880s and was
Exchange Variation: 4.Bxc6 Exchange Variation
reintroduced in 1901 by Carl Schlechter. In the 1950s,
after 4...dxc6
Mark Taimanov played it with some success, though it
Main article: Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation
remained a sideline, as it has to this day. The Nor-
wegian connection was first introduced by Svein Johan-
In the Exchange Variation, 4.Bxc6, (ECO C68–C69) nessen who played the line from 1957 and later strength-
White damages Black’s pawn structure, giving him a ened when Simen Agdestein and some other Norwegian
ready-made long-term plan of playing d4 ...exd4 Qxd4, players adopted the variation. In 1995 Jonathan Tisdall
followed by exchanging all the pieces and winning the published the article “Ruy Lopez. The Norwegian Varia-
pure pawn ending. Black gains good compensation, how- tion” in New in Chess Yearbook 37.
ever, in the form of the bishop pair, and the variation is
not considered White’s most ambitious, though former
world champions Emanuel Lasker and Bobby Fischer em- Variations combining 3...a6 and ...Bc5 Møller
ployed it with success. Defence 5...Bc5
After 4.Bxc6, Black almost always responds 4...dxc6, al-
though 4...bxc6 is playable. It is not usually played due The Graz Defence, Classical Defence Deferred, and
to the reply 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 and White is in control of Møller Defence combine 3...a6 with the active move
the centre. After 4...dxc6, the obvious 5.Nxe5? is weak, ...Bc5. For a century it was believed that it was safer for
since 5...Qd4! 6.Nf3 Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ leaves White Black to place the bishop on e7, but it is much more ac-
with no compensation for Black’s bishop pair. There are tive on c5. White can gain time after playing d4 as the
two principal lines after 4.Bxc6 dxc6. In the late 19th and black bishop will have to move, but this does not always
early 20th centuries, Lasker had great success with 5.d4 seem to be as important as was once thought.[8]
exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4. Since then, better defences The Møller Defence, 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5
for Black have been developed, and this line is consid- was already an old line in 1903 when Dane Jørgen
ered to slightly favour Black. Jon Jacobs wrote in the Møller (1873–1944) analysed it in Tidsskrift för Schack.
July 2005 Chess Life (p. 21): “A database search (lim- Alexander Alekhine played this for Black in the early por-
ited to games longer than 20 moves, both players FIDE tion of his career; despite his advocacy, it never achieved
2300+) reveals the position after 7.Nxd4 was reached 20 great popularity, and even he eventually came to consider
times from 1985–2002. White’s results were abysmal: it dubious.
+0−7=13.” Max Euwe gives the pure pawn ending in this
position as a win for White.[7] The Graz Defence, 3...a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Bc5, was
analysed by Alois Fink (b. 1910) in Österreichische
The flexible 5.0-0 is sometimes called the Barendregt Schachzeitung in 1956 and in Wiener Schach Nachrichten
Variation, but it was Fischer who developed it into a se- in 1979, although it did not become popular until the
rious weapon in the 1960s. Unlike 5.d4, it forces Black 1990s.
to defend his e-pawn, which he usually does with 5...f6,
5...Bg4, 5...Qd6 (the sharpest line, preparing queenside
castling), 5...Qe7, 5...Qf6 or 5...Bd6. A rare but playable Steinitz Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 d6 Steinitz
move is 5...Be6 (or 5...Be7), the idea being that if White Defence Deferred 4...d6
plays 6.Nxe5, Black plays 6... Qd4, forking the knight
and the e4-pawn. The move ...Qd4, regaining the pawn In the Steinitz Defence Deferred (also called the Mod-
at e4, is usually impossible in these variations once White ern Steinitz Defence or the Neo-Steinitz Defence)
has castled, due to the open e-file. (ECO C71–C76), Black interpolates 3...a6 4.Ba4 before
White may also delay the exchange for a move or two: playing 4...d6, which was frequently played by Alexander
4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6 or 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bxc6 (the Delayed Ex- Alekhine, José Raúl Capablanca and Paul Keres. The
change Deferred), for example; at first glance this seems possibility of breaking the pin with a timely ...b5 gives
a waste of time, but Black having played ...Nf6 rules out Black more latitude than in the Old Steinitz Defence; in
defending the pawn with ...f6, and the bishop already be- particular, in the Old Steinitz, White can practically force
ing on e7 means that ...Bd6 would be a loss of tempo. Black to give up his strongpoint at e5, but in the Steinitz
18 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

Deferred, Black is able to maintain his centre. Most plau-
sible White moves are playable here, including 5.c3, 5.c4,
5.Bxc6, 5.d4, and 5.0-0. The sharp Siesta Variation
arises after 5.c3 f5, while a manoeuvring game results
from the calmer 5.c3 Bd7 6.d4. The game is also sharp
after 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.d4 (ECO C73) or 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5
(ECO C72). The older lines starting with 5.c4 and 5.d4
are not regarded as testing for Black, though the latter of-
fers a tricky gambit. There are six ECO classifications
for the Modern Steinitz. White’s responses 5.d4, 5.Nc3,
and 5.c4 are included in C71, while 5.0-0 is C72. The
delayed exchange 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.d4 is C73. C74–C76
all begin with 5.c3. C74 covers 5...Nf6, but primarily
focuses on 5...f5 6.exf5 Bxf5 with 7.d4 or 7.0-0. C75’s
main continuation is 5...Bd7 6.d4 Nge7, the Rubinstein
Variation. C76 is characterised by the Black kingside
fianchetto 5...Bd7 6.d4 g6.
Schliemann Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 f5 The
Schliemann Defence Deferred, 3...a6 4.Ba4 f5, is rarely
seen, with practically its only top-level appearance be-
ing in the 1974 Candidates Final, when Viktor Korchnoi
adopted it versus Anatoly Karpov. It is considered infe-
rior to the regular Schliemann, since White can answer
effectively with 5.d4! exd4 6.e5.
Arkhangelsk Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7
Arkhangelsk Defence 6...Bb7
The Arkhangelsk Defence (or Archangel Defence)
(ECO C78) was invented by Soviet theoreticians in the
city of Arkhangelsk. The variation begins 3...a6 4.Ba4
Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7. This line often leads to sharp
positions in which Black wagers that the fianchettoed
bishop’s influence on the centre and kingside will offset
Black’s delay in castling. White has several options, in-
cluding attempting to build an ideal pawn centre with c3
and d4, defending the e-pawn with Re1 or simply devel-
oping. The Arkhangelsk Defence is tactically justified
by Black’s ability to meet 7.Ng5 with 7...d5 8.exd5 Nd4!
(not 8...Nxd5, when White gets the advantage with 9.Qh5
g6 10.Qf3).
3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6, Black waits until White castles
before playing ...d6. This can enable Black to avoid some
lines in the Steinitz Defence Deferred in which White cas-
tles queenside although the position of the knight on f6
also precludes Black from supporting the centre with f7–
f6. These nuances seem to have little importance today,
as neither the Steinitz Defence Deferred nor the Russian
Defence have been popular for many years.
Chigorin played the Russian Defence in the 1890s, and
later it was adopted by Rubinstein and Alekhine. The last
significant use of the Russian Defence was in the 1950s
when it was played by some Russian masters.
Open Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 Open Defence
after 8...Be6
In the Open Defence, 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4,
Black tries to make use of the time White will take to
regain the pawn to gain a foothold in the centre, with
play usually continuing 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6.
Here 8.Nxe5, once adopted by Fischer, is much less of-
ten seen, and Black should equalise after the accurate
8...Nxe5 9.dxe5 c6, which avoids prematurely commit-
ting the light-squared bishop and solidly defends d5, often
a problem in the Open. The Riga Variation, 6...exd4, is
considered inferior; the main line runs 7.Re1 d5 8.Nxd4
Bd6! 9.Nxc6 Bxh2+! 10.Kh1! (10.Kxh2 Qh4+ 11.Kg1
Qxf2+ draws by perpetual check.) Qh4 11.Rxe4+!
dxe4 12.Qd8+! Qxd8 13.Nxd8+ Kxd8 14.Kxh2 Be6
(14...f5?? 15.Bg5#!) and now the endgame is considered
to favour White after 15.Be3 or Nd2 (but not 15.Nc3 c5!,
playing to trap the bishop).
White has a variety of options at move nine, including
9.c3, 9.Be3, 9.Qe2 and 9.Nbd2.
The classical line starts with 9.c3 when Black may choose
from 9...Na5, 9...Be7 (the main line), and the aggressive
9...Bc5.
After 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2, Black must meet the
attack on e4, with the following possibilities from which
to choose: 11...f5, 11...Bf5, both of which aim to main-
tain the strongpoint on e4, or the forcing line 11...Nxf2,
introduced by the English amateur Vernon Dilworth.

Mackenzie Variation 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.d4 The Macken- Today, 9.Be3 Be7 10.c3 is often used to transpose into
zie Variation 5.d4, is a sharp line followed normally by the main line, 9.c3, while obviating the option of the Dil-
5...exd4 6.O-O and 6...Be7 instead of 6...Nxe4 because worth.
black will surely lose his knight. 7.Re1 follows, then An old continuation is 11...f5, when after 12.Nb3 Ba7
black plays 7...b5. Some players prefer the simple 8.Bb3,
13.Nfd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 White can gain some ad-
while others go for the sharp 8.e5. vantage with Bogoljubov’s 15.Qxd4. Instead, the very
sharp La Grande Variante continues 15.cxd4 f4 16.f3
Ng3 17.hxg3 fxg3 18.Qd3 Bf5 19.Qxf5 Rxf5 20.Bxf5
Russian Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6 Russian Qh4 21.Bh3 Qxd4+ 22.Kh1 Qxe5, with unclear conse-
Defence 5...d6 quences. Perhaps the most famous game in this variation
is Smyslov–Reshevsky, 1945 USSR–USA Radio Match.
The Russian Defence (ECO C79) can be considered a An analysis of the line had just been published in a Rus-
delayed Steinitz Defence Deferred. With the move order sian chess magazine, and Smyslov was able to follow it
3.2. RUY LOPEZ 19

to quickly obtain a winning position. Reshevsky had not Also quite fashionable is 6. d3[9] with Peter Svidler ded-
seen the analysis and he struggled in vain to solve the po- icating an entire video series to it.[10]
sition over the board with his chess clock running. The
Dilworth Variation (or Attack), 11...Nxf2 12.Rxf2 f6
13.exf6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Qxf6 has scored well for Black, Delayed Exchange Variation Deferred: 6.Bxc6 The
with many traps for the ill-prepared White player. The Delayed Exchange Variation Deferred (or Exchange
main line leads to unbalanced endgames which are diffi- Variation Doubly Deferred) (ECO C85), 6.Bxc6, loses
cult to play for both sides, though with a strong drawing a tempo compared to the Exchange Variation, though in
tendency. Yusupov is one of the few grandmasters to of- compensation, the black knight on f6 and bishop on e7
ten adopt the Dilworth. are awkwardly placed. The knight on f6 prevents Black
In the Howell Attack (ECO C81), 9.Qe2, White aims for from supporting the e-pawn with f7–f6, and the bishop is
play against d5 after Rd1. The game usually continues somewhat passively posted on e7.
9...Be7 10.Rd1 followed by 10...Nc5 or 10...0-0. Keres
played this line several times in the late 1940s, and it is
sometimes named after him. Centre Attack: 6.d4 The Centre Attack (or Centre
Variation) (ECO C84), 6.d4, leads to sharp play. Black
Karpov’s move, 9.Nbd2, limits Black’s options. In can hold the balance, but it is easy to make a misstep.
the 1978 Karpov–Korchnoi World Chess Championship
match, following 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 (10...Be7 is an
old move that remains popular) Karpov introduced the Worrall Attack: 6.Qe2 Worrall Attack 6.Qe2
surprising 11.Ng5!?, a move suggested by his trainer, Igor
Zaitsev. If Black takes the knight with 11...Qxg5 White
regains the material with 12.Qf3. This variation played In the Worrall Attack (ECO C86), White substitutes
a decisive role in a later World Championship match, 6.Qe2 for 6.Re1. The idea is that the queen will support
Kasparov–Anand 1995, when Anand was unable to suc- the e-pawn leaving the rook free to move to d1 to sup-
cessfully defend as Black. port the advance of the d-pawn, although there isn't al-
ways time for this. Play normally continues 6...b5 7.Bb3
followed by 7...0-0 8.c3 and 8...d5 or 8...d6.
Closed Defence 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7: alternatives to
Paul Keres played the line several times. More recently,
Main line
Sergei Tiviakov has played it, as has Nigel Short, who
played it twice in his 1992 match against Anatoly Karpov
Closed Defence after 5...Be7
and won both games.

In the main line, White normally retreats his bishop with

4.Ba4, when the usual continuation is 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Be7. Averbakh Variation: 6.Re1 d6 Averbakh Variation
Black now threatens to win a pawn with 6...b5 followed 6...d6
by 7...Nxe4, so White must respond. Usually White de-
fends the e-pawn with 6.Re1 which, in turn, threatens
In the Averbakh Variation (C87), named for Yuri Aver-
Black with the loss of a pawn after 7.Bxc6 and 8.Nxe5.
bakh, Black defends the threatened e-pawn with 6...d6
Black most commonly averts this threat by driving away
instead of driving away the white bishop with the more
the white bishop with 6...b5 7.Bb3, although it is also pos-
common 6...b5. This defence shares some similarities
sible to defend the pawn with 6...d6.
with the Modern Steinitz and Russian Defences as Black
After 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Be7, the most frequently seen con- avoids the ...b5 advance that weakens the queenside.
tinuation is 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0, discussed in the White can reply with either 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.d4 or 7.c3 Bg4
next section. Examined in this section are the alternatives (it is too late for Black to transpose into the more usual
to the main line: lines of the Closed Defence, because 7...b5 would allow
8.Bc2, saving White a tempo over the two-move sequence
• 6.Bxc6 (Delayed Exchange Variation Deferred) Bb3–c2 found in other variations). The pin temporarily
prevents White from playing d2–d4. In response, White
• 6.d4 (Centre Attack) can either force d4 with 8.h3 Bh5 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.d4, or
postpone d4 for the time being and play 8.d3 followed
• 6.Qe2 (Worrall Attack)
by manoeuvering the queen knight to the kingside with
• 6.Re1 d6 (Averbakh Variation) Nbd2–f1–g3.

• 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3
Trajković Variation: 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7 Trajković
• 7...Bb7 (Trajković Variation) Variation 6...b5 7.Bb3 Bb7
• 7...0-0 8.c3 d5 (Marshall Attack)
20 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

An alternative to 7...d6 is 7...Bb7. This is known as the Improvements to Black’s play were found (Marshall
Trajković Variation. Black may sacrifice a pawn with played 11...Nf6!? originally, but later discovered
8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 Nf4. 11...c6!) and the Marshall Attack was adopted by top
players including Boris Spassky, John Nunn and more
recently Michael Adams. In the Classical World Chess
7...0-0 After 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3, Black often plays 7...0-0. Championship 2004, challenger Peter Leko used the
Here White can play 8.c3, but he has other moves. Al- Marshall to win an important game against World Cham-
ternatives are 8.a4, 8.h3, 8.d4, and 8.d3, which are often pion Vladimir Kramnik. Currently, Armenian Grand-
called “anti-Marshall” moves. White can also play 8.Nc3 master Levon Aronian is one of the main advocates for
with the idea of playing 9.Nd5 later. the Marshall Attack.[16]
In the case White does play 8.c3, Black can and often
does play 8...d6, which is just the main line in another
Main line: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6
order. But he can also play 8...d5 for the Marshall Attack.
8.c3 0-0

Main line after 8...0-0

Marshall Attack: 7...0-0 8.c3 d5 Marshall Attack
after 11...c6, the most common move in modern play.[11]
In 1918 Marshall played 11...Nf6.[12] The main lines of the Closed Ruy Lopez continue 6.Re1
b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0. White can now play 9.d3 or 9.d4,
but by far the most common move is 9.h3 which prepares
One of Black’s more aggressive alternatives is the Mar- d4 while preventing the awkward pin ...Bg4. This can be
shall Attack: after 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 considered the main line of the opening as a whole and
b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 Black plays the gambit 8...d5, sacri- thousands of top-level games have reached this position.
ficing a pawn. The main line begins with 9.exd5 Nxd5 White aims to play d4 followed by Nbd2–f1–g3, which
(9...e4?!, the Herman Steiner variation, is considered would firmly support e4 with the bishops on open diago-
weaker) 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 (Marshall’s original nals and both knights threatening Black’s kingside. Black
moves, 11...Nf6, and 11...Bb7 are considered inferior, will try to prevent this knight manoeuver by expanding
but have also yielded good results at top levels of play for on the queenside, taking action in the centre, or putting
Black. GM Joel Benjamin suggests that 11...Bb7 is in- pressure on e4.
ferior due to 12.Qf3). Black will attack and force weak-
nesses in White’s kingside which has been stripped of de- After 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0, we have:
fenders. White’s first decision is whether to play 12.d3 or
12.d4. In either case it is apparent that the move 8.c3 is • 9.d3 (Pilnik Variation)
no longer helpful to White. The Black attack can be quite
treacherous for White. Since Black’s compensation is • 9.d4 (Yates Variation)
based on positional rather than tactical considerations, it
is difficult or perhaps impossible to find a refutation, and • 9.d4 Bg4 (Bogoljubow Variation)
variations have been analyzed very deeply (sometimes be-
yond move 30) without coming to a definite determina- • 9.d4 Bg4 10.a4 (Yates Variation, Short At-
tion over the soundness of Black’s gambit. The Marshall tack)
Attack is a very sharp opening system in which a great
amount of theoretical knowledge is vital, and many White • 9.a3 (Suetin Variation)
players, including Garry Kasparov, avoid it by playing
one of the anti-Marshall systems, 8.d4, 8.a4 or 8.h3 in- • 9.Bc2 (Lutikov Variation)
[11]
stead of 8.c3.
• 9.h3
This gambit became famous when Frank James Marshall
used it as a prepared variation against José Raúl Capa-
• 9...Na5 (Chigorin Variation)
blanca in 1918; nevertheless Capablanca found a way
through the complications and won.[12] It is often said • 9...Nb8 (Breyer Variation)
that Marshall had kept this gambit a secret for use against
• 9...Bb7 (Zaitsev Variation)
Capablanca since his defeat in their 1909 match.[13] The
most common counterclaim is that Marshall had used a • 9...Nd7 (Karpov Variation)
similar approach in 1917 against Walter Frere,[14] How-
• 9...Be6 (Kholmov Variation)
ever Edward Winter found: no clear evidence of the date
for Frere vs Marshall; several games between 1910 and • 9...h6 (Smyslov Variation)
1918 where Marshall passed up opportunities to use the
• 9...Qd7 (Smyslov Variation)
Marshall Attack against Capablanca; and an 1893 game
that used the same line as in Frere vs Marshall.[15] • 9...a5 (Keres Variation)
3.2. RUY LOPEZ
Pilnik Variation: 9.d3 The Pilnik Variation, named
for Herman Pilnik, is also known as the Teichmann
Variation from the game Teichmann–Schlechter, Carls-
bad 1911. White plays 9.d3 intending to later advance
to d4 under favourable circumstances. Although d2–d3–
d4 appears to lose a tempo compared to d2–d4, White
may be able to omit h3 regaining the tempo, especially if
Black plays ...Bb7.
Yates Variation and Bogoljubow Variation: 9.d4
White usually plays 9.h3 instead of 9.d4 (the Yates Vari-
ation) because after 9.d4 Bg4 (the Bogoljobow Varia-
tion), the pin of the white king knight is troublesome.
The variation takes its name from the game Capablanca–
Bogoljubow, London 1922.
Chigorin Variation: 9.h3 Na5 Chigorin Variation
after 11.d4 Qc7
The Chigorin Variation was refined by Mikhail Chig-
orin around the turn of the 20th century and became
the primary Black defence to the Ruy Lopez for more
than fifty years. With 9...Na5 Black chases the white
bishop from the a2–g8 diagonal and frees the c-pawn for
queenside expansion. After 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 the classical
Black follow up is 11...Qc7, reinforcing e5 and placing
the queen on the c-file which may later become open after
...cxd4. Other Black moves in this position are 11...Bb7
and 11...Nd7; the latter was adopted by Keres a few times
in the 1960s. The Chigorin Variation has declined in pop-
ularity because Black must spend some time bringing his
offside knight on a5 back into the game.
The Chigorin is divided into four ECO classifications. In
C96, Black or White deviate after 10.Bc2, and do not
reach the classical main line position 10...c5 11.d4 Qc7.
In C97, White proceeds from the diagram with 12.a4,
12.d5, 12.b4, or the main line 12.Nbd2 when Black re-
sponds with ...Be6, ...Rd8, ...Re8, ...Bb7 or ...Bd7. The
C98 classification covers 12.Nbd2 Nc6, while C99 covers
12.Nbd2 cxd4 13.cxd4.
Breyer Variation: 9.h3 Nb8 Breyer Variation 9...Nb8
The Breyer Variation was recommended by Gyula
Breyer as early as 1911,[17] but there are no known game
records in which Breyer employed this line. The Breyer
Variation did not become popular until the 1960s when it
was adopted by Boris Spassky and others. In particular,
Spassky’s back to back wins over Mikhail Tal at Tbilisi
in 1965 did much to enhance its reputation, and Spassky
has a career-plus score with the Breyer. The variation is
the choice of many top level players today as White has Smyslov Variation: 9.h3 h6 The Smyslov Variation
had trouble proving an advantage against it.
With 9...Nb8 Black frees the c-pawn and intends to route ation. With 9...h6 Black prepares to play 10...Re8 and
the knight to d7 where it supports e5. If White fortifies 11...Bf8 without fear of 10.Ng5. The loss of a tempo with
21
the centre with 10.d3 the opening is classified ECO code
C94. The more common continuation, 10.d4, is ECO
C95. The main line continues 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7
12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8. Black is threatening to win the
e4-pawn via ...exd4 uncovering an attack on the pawn,
so White plays 14.Ng3. Black generally plays 14...g6 to
stop White’s knight from going to f5. White then usu-
ally tries to attack the Black queenside via 15.a4. Black
seeks counterplay in the centre via 15...c5. White can
attack either the kingside or the queenside. This forces
resolution of the centre via 16.d5. Black can exploit the
weak squares on the queenside via 16...c4. White will try
to attack on the kingside via 17.Bg5, moving his forces
to the kingside. Black will kick the bishop with 17...h6.
The logical retreat is 18.Be3, which is met by 18...Nc5.
White plays 19.Qd2, forcing 19...h5. The point of this
manoeuver was to weaken Black’s kingside.
Zaitsev Variation: 9.h3 Bb7 Zaitsev Variation
9...Bb7
The Zaitsev Variation (also called the Flohr–Zaitsev
Variation) was advocated by Igor Zaitsev, who was one
of Karpov’s trainers for many years. A Karpov favourite,
the Zaitsev remains one of the most important variations
of the Ruy Lopez. With 9...Bb7 Black prepares to put
more pressure on e4 after 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 when
play can become very sharp and tactical. One drawback
of this line is that White can force Black to choose a dif-
ferent defence or allow a draw by repetition of position
with 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3.
Karpov Variation: 9.h3 Nd7 Karpov tried 9...Nd7
several times in the 1990 World Championship match,
but Kasparov achieved a significant advantage against it
in the 18th game. It is solid but slightly passive. Con-
fusingly 9...Nd7 is also called the Chigorin Variation so
there are two variations of the Ruy Lopez with that name,
but 9...Na5 is the move more commonly associated with
Chigorin. This defense is also known as the Keres Varia-
tion, after Paul Keres.
Kholmov Variation: 9.h3 Be6 The Kholmov Vari-
ation, 9...Be6, was popular in the 1980s but is now
rarely played. The main line runs 10.d4 Bxb3 11.axb3
(11.Qxb3 is another option) exd4 12.cxd4 d5 13.e5 Ne4
14.Nc3 f5 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rxe4 Qd5
18.Rg4, when it has been shown that White’s extra pawn
is more valuable than Black’s more active and harmonised
pieces.
(ECO C93) is a plan similar to that of the Zaitsev Vari-
22 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

9...h6 gives White enough time to complete the Nbd2– Bird’s Defence: 3...Nd4
f1–g3 manoeuver, and the pawn move can also weaken
Black’s kingside. The Zaitsev can be considered to be an Bird’s Defence (ECO C61), 3...Nd4, is an uncommon
improved Smyslov in which Black tries to save a tempo variation in modern praxis. With careful play White is
by omitting ...h6. held to gain an advantage.
Kasparov played the Smyslov Variation in a loss to the
This defence was published in 1843 in Paul Rudolf von
Deep Blue chess computer in Game 2 of their 1997 Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels and explored by
match. Svetozar Gligorić has been the most prolific C93
Henry Bird in the late 19th century. Bird played it as
player.[18] Black at least 25 times, scoring +9 =3 −13 (nine wins,
three draws, thirteen losses).[20] Bird’s Defence was later
used a few times in tournament play by Siegbert Tarrasch,
Smyslov Variation: 9.h3 Qd7 9...Qd7 is another vari- Boris Spassky, and Alexander Khalifman. Although it
ation by Smyslov. is still sometimes seen as a surprise weapon, no strong
master since Bird has adopted it regularly.[21] The World
3.2.4 Black defences other than 3...a6 Champion Magnus Carlsen played it as black in the 2014
Chess Olympiad against Ivan Šarić and lost.[22]
Of the variations in this section, the Berlin and Schlie-
mann Defences are the most popular today, followed by
Steinitz Defence: 3...d6
the Classical Defence.[19]
The Steinitz Defence (also called the Old Steinitz
• 3...Nge7 (Cozio Defence) Defence) (ECO C62), 3...d6, is solid but passive and
• 3...g6 (Smyslov Defence) cramped. Although the favourite of the first world
champion Wilhelm Steinitz, and often played by world
• 3...Nd4 (Bird’s Defence) champions and expert defensive players Emanuel Lasker,
José Capablanca, and occasionally by Vasily Smyslov, it
• 3...d6 (Steinitz Defence)
largely fell into disuse after World War I, as its inherent
• 3...f5!? (Schliemann Defence) passivity spurred a search for more active means of de-
fending the Spanish. White can force Black to concede
• 3...Bc5 (Classical or Cordel Defence) the strongpoint at e5 (see Tarrasch Trap), a significant
but not fatal concession.
• 3...Nf6 (Berlin Defence)
The deferred variant of this defence (3...a6 4.Ba4 d6) of-
and other less-common third moves for Black. fers Black a freer position and is more popular.

Cozio Defence: 3...Nge7 Schliemann Defence: 3...f5

The Cozio Defence (part of ECO C60), 3...Nge7, is dis- The Schliemann 's Defence or Schliemann–Jaenisch
tinctly old-fashioned, and the least popular of the de- Gambit (ECO C63), 3...f5!?, is a sharp line in which
fences at Black’s third move. Although Bent Larsen used Black plays for a kingside attack, frequently sacrificing
it occasionally with success, it remains one of the least one or two pawns. Considered by many to be some-
explored variations of the Ruy Lopez. what dubious, it is occasionally used in top-level play as
a surprise weapon. This variation was originated by Carl
Jaenisch in 1847 and is sometimes named after him. Al-
Smyslov Defence: 3...g6
though later named for German lawyer Adolf Karl Wil-
helm Schliemann (1817–72), the line Schliemann actu-
The Smyslov Defence, Fianchetto Defence, Barnes
ally played in the 1860s was a gambit variation of the
Defence, or Pillsbury Defence (part of ECO C60),
Cordel Defence (3...Bc5 4.c3 f5). The most common re-
3...g6, is a quiet positional system played occasionally by
sponses for White to 3...f5!? are 4.d3 or 4.Nc3, with play
Vasily Smyslov and Boris Spassky, becoming popular in
after 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 going 5...d5, with great com-
the 1980s when it was shown that 4.c3 a6! gives Black a
plications to follow, or 5...Nf6, which generally leads to
good game.
quieter play.
It was later discovered that 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5 gives White
the advantage, and as such the variation is rarely played
today. An interesting gambit line 4.d4 exd4 5.c3 has also Classical Defence: 3...Bc5
been recommended by Alexander Khalifman, although
some of the resulting positions have yet to be extensively The Classical Defence or Cordel Defence (ECO C64),
tested. 3...Bc5, is possibly the oldest defence to the Ruy Lopez,
3.2. RUY LOPEZ 23

and has been played occasionally by former world cham- which this line was employed ended in draws. An alter-
pion Boris Spassky and Boris Gulko. White’s most com- native for Black, though seldom seen since the 1890s, is
mon reply is 4.c3, when Black may choose to play 4...f5, 6...bxc6 7.dxe5 Nb7, although White keeps an advantage
the Cordel Gambit, leading to sharp play, after which despite Black’s two bishops, as it is difficult for him to
5.d4 is considered the strongest reply. More solid for gain active counterplay.
Black is instead, 4...Nf6, when 5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 leads White’s move 4.Nc3 transposes to the Four Knights
to the Benelux Variation. White’s principal alternative Game, Spanish Variation.
to 4.c3 is 4.0-0, when Black can transpose to the Classi-
cal Berlin with 4...Nf6 or play 4...Nd4 which isn't so bad Another possible try for White is 4.d3. This is “Steinitz’s
for Black. move, with which he scored many spectacular successes
during his long reign as World Champion”.[25] The main
An alternative for White is the fork trick 4. Nxe5. Few replies for Black are 4...d6 and 4...Bc5. In both cases,
games have been played with this line, but there is no clear White commonly plays 5. c3. An uncommon and dubi-
refutation for Black. The name derives from White’s play ous reply is 4...Ne7, which tries to set up the Mortimer
if Black captures the knight: 4...Nxe5 5. d4. Trap.
The Berlin is assigned ECO codes C65–67. Code C65
Berlin Defence: 3...Nf6 covers alternatives to 4.0-0 as well as 4.0-0 Bc5. Code
C66 covers 4.0-0 d6, while C67 is 4.0-0 Nxe4.
Berlin Defence 3...Nf6

Other
The Berlin Defence, 3...Nf6, has long had a reputation
for solidity and drawishness and is sometimes called “the Less-common third moves for Black:
Berlin Wall".[23] The Berlin Defence was played in the
late 19th century and early 20th century by Emanuel
• 3...Bb4 (Alapin Defence)
Lasker and others, who typically answered 4.0-0 with
4...d6 in the style of the Steinitz Variation. This approach • 3...Qf6
ultimately fell out of favour, as had the old form of the
Steinitz, due to its passivity, and the entire variation be- • 3...f6 (Nuremberg Defence)
came rare. Arthur Bisguier played the Berlin for decades,
but always chose the variation 4.0-0 Nxe4. Then in 2000, • 3...Qe7 (Vinogradov Variation)
Vladimir Kramnik used the line as a drawing weapon
• 3...Na5 (Pollock’s Defence)
against Garry Kasparov in Classical World Chess Cham-
pionship 2000, following which the Berlin has experi- • 3...g5 (Brentano Defence)
enced a remarkable renaissance: even players with a dy-
namic style such as Alexei Shirov, Veselin Topalov, and • 3...Bd6
Kasparov himself have tried it, and Magnus Carlsen and
Viswanathan Anand both used it (Carlsen extensively so) • 3...b6? (Rotary Defence or Albany Defence)
during the 2013 World Chess Championship and 2014
• 3...d5? (Sawyer’s Gambit or Spanish Countergam-
World Chess Championship.
bit)
Open Berlin Defence, l'Hermet (Queenswap) Variation
after 8...Kxd8 • 3...Be7 (Lucena Defence)

• 3...a5 (Bulgarian Variation)

Since Black’s third move does not threaten to win the e-
pawn—if Black captures it, White will win back the pawn
on e5[24] —White usually castles. After 4.0-0, Black can 3.2.5 See also
play either the solid 4...Nxe4 (the Open Variation) or
the more combative 4...Bc5 (the Berlin Classical Vari- • List of chess openings
ation). After 4...Nxe4 5.d4 (5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 is also
reasonable) Nd6 (5...Be7 is the Rio de Janeiro Variation) • List of chess openings named after people
6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 (l'Hermet Vari-
ation), White is considered to have a small advantage in
light of his somewhat better pawn structure and Black’s 3.2.6 References
awkwardly placed king. Black, by way of compensation,
[1] Taulbut, Shaun (1996). Understanding the Spanish Game.
possesses the bishop pair and his position has no weak-
Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-7633-8.
nesses, so it is difficult for White to exploit his structural
superiority without opening the game for Black’s bishops; [2] Edward Winter, "The Berlin Defence (Ruy López)", Chess
all four of the games in the Kasparov–Kramnik match in Notes
24
[3] Lane, Gary (2006). The Ruy Lopez Explained. Batsford.
ISBN 0-7134-8978-2.
[4] Morphy played 3...a6 in the second (a draw) and fourth
(a win for Morphy) games of his 1858 match with Adolf
Anderssen. Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy’s Games of
Chess, Dover, 1957, pp. 106–08, 110–12. ISBN 0-
486-20386-7. The move had been played much earlier,
however. Charles Henry Stanley played 3...a6 twice in
his 1845 match, held in Morphy’s hometown of New
Orleans, against Eugène Rousseau for the United States
Chess Championship. Stanley lost both games, although
he won the match. Andy Soltis and Gene McCormick,
“The Morphy Defense”, Chess Life, August 1984, pp.
26–27. Howard Staunton also mentioned 3...a6 in his
Chess-Player’s Handbook, first published in 1847. Howard
Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook (2nd ed. 1848),
Henry C. Bohn, pp. 147, 149.
[5] Harry Golombek, Chess: A History, G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
1976, pp. 117–18.
[6] As of 2016-11-23, Chess-DB.com reports that 243757
out of 355830 games in its database beginning with the
Ruy Lopez, continued with 3...a6, i.e. a percentage of ap-
prox. 68.5%. Similarly, 365Chess.com reports a 69.3%
percentage (100540 out of 145061 games) and Chess-
Base.com (requires free registration) reports a 74.3% per-
centage (63183 out of 85022 games).
[7] Müller & Lamprecht, pp. 147–48
[8] MCO-14, p.54
[9] Chessgames position after 6. d3
[10] 6. d3 Spanish according to Svidler
[11] Silman, J. (2004). “Marshall Attack”. Retrieved 2009-
06-01.
[12] Fine, R. (1952). “Capablanca”. The World’s Great Chess
Games. André Deutsch (now as paperback from Dover).
pp. 109–121. ISBN 0-679-13046-2.
[13] “The Total Marshall”. 15 April 2002. Retrieved 2009-
06-01.
[14] “Frere vs Marshall, New York, 1917”. chessgames.com.
Retrieved 2009-06-01.
[15] Winter, E.G. “The Marshall Gambit”. Retrieved 2009-
06-01.
[16] Nandanan, Hari Hara (2 October 2011). “Carlsen stops
Ivanchuk, Anand held”. The Times of India. Bennett,
Coleman & Co. Ltd. Retrieved 29 May 2015. Anand
carefully employed the anti-Marshall against Aronian, an
acknowledged expert in the Marshall. The Indian waited
for things to unfold rather than forcing the pace in his
characteristic way but after waiting for sometime on move
21 he deviated from the known track. Though he seemed
to have got something out of the opening, the World
champion did not have anything special.
[17] Barden (1963), pp. 15–16
[18] Online Chess Database and Community
CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS
[19] New in Chess Base
[20] Bird Defence games played by Bird. ChessGames.com.
Retrieved on 2009-01-29.
[21] Shaw, John, Starting Out: The Ruy Lopez, p. 36
[22] Ivan Saric vs Magnus Carlsen, Chess Olympiad 2014
[23] Emmett, Ryan (2008-08-09). “The Berlin Wall Grows
Higher In Sochi”. Chess.com. Retrieved 2009-03-22.
[24] Seirawan 2003, p. 52
[25] Horowitz and Reinfeld 1954, p. 59
Bibliography
• Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2007). Secrets
of Pawn Endings. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-
1-904600-88-6.
• Barden, Leonard (1963). The Ruy Lopez • Winning
Chess with 1 P-K4. Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-
009997-1.
• This article includes text from David Wheeler’s A
Beginner’s Garden of Chess Openings, originally
under the GNU Free Documentation License.
3.2.7 Further reading
• Burgess, Graham (2000). The Mammoth Book of
Chess. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
• De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings:
MCO-14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN
0-8129-3084-3.
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
• Kasparov, Garry; Keene, Raymond (1994) [1989].
Batsford Chess Openings 2. Henry Holt. ISBN 0-
8050-3409-9.
• Nunn, John (1999). Nunn’s Chess Openings. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
• Seirawan, Yasser (2003). Winning Chess Openings.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-349-7.
• Shaw, John (2003). Starting Out: The Ruy Lopez.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-321-7.
• Tseitlin, Mikhail (1991). Winning with the Schlie-
mann. Maxwell Macmillan Chess. ISBN 1-85744-
017-X.
• Lalic, Bogdan (2003). The Marshall Attack. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-244-1.
3.3. RUY LOPEZ, EXCHANGE VARIATION 25

• Lane, Gary (2006). The Ruy Lopez Explained. Bats-
ford. ISBN 0-7134-8978-2.
• Marin, Mihail (2007). A Spanish Opening Repertoire
for Black. Quality Chess. ISBN 91-976005-0-4.
• Wall, Bill (1986). 500 Ruy Lopez Miniatures.
Chessco. ISBN 978-0-931462-56-6.
• Flear, Glen (2000). Open Ruy Lopez. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-261-8.
• Pavlovic, Milos (2009). Fighting The Ruy Lopez.
Globe Pequot. ISBN 1-85744-590-2.
• Cox, John (2008). The Berlin Wall. Quality Chess.
ISBN 978-91-85779-02-4.
• de Firmian, Nick (2000). Batsford’s Modern Chess
Openings. Batsford. ISBN 978-0-7134-8656-8.
3.2.8 External links
• Opening Report. Marshall Counterattack: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5
7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 (6074 games)
• Ruy Lopez analysis video
• ECO code C68 covers 4...bxc6 and 4...dxc6, with
White’s response of 5.d4 or 5.Nc3 to either cap-
ture. After 4...dxc6 White should not capture with
5.Nxe5 as 5...Qd4 forks the knight and pawn, thus
regaining the material, leading to positions where
White has forfeited his structural advantage—the
compensation for ceding the two bishops. Black
has a variety of playable responses to the pop-
ular 4...dxc6 5.0-0 (the Barendregt Variation,
which Bobby Fischer played with success). White
now threatens 6.Nxe5 because the sequence 6...Qd4
7.Nf3 Qxe4 to regain the pawn, now fails to 8.Re1
pinning and winning the queen. ECO code C68 ex-
amines these responses to 5.0-0: 5...Qf6, 5...Qe7,
5...Bd6, 5...Qd6, or 5...Bg4 (all directly defending
the e5-pawn, except 5...Bg4 which indirectly de-
fends by pinning the knight). The moves 5...Be6,
5...Be7, and 5...Ne7 are less common moves which
have never achieved popularity. The idea behind
these moves is that if White plays to win a pawn
with 6.Nxe5, 6...Qd4 7.Nf3 Qxe4 is again playable,
as the Black minor piece on e6 or e7 blocks the e-
file.
• ECO code C69 treats the variations arising from the
continuation 4...dxc6 5.0-0 f6.

3.3.2 Barendregt Variation: 5.0-0

3.3 Ruy Lopez, Exchange Varia- There are several main replies to the Barendregt Varia-
tion tion, 5.0-0.

The Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation is a variation of 5...Bg4

the Ruy Lopez chess opening that begins with the moves:
The most aggressive move against the Barendregt Varia-
1. e4 e5 tion is 5...Bg4. After 6.h3, Black has possibilities such
2. Nf3 Nc6 as 6...Bh5 or 6...Bxf3, but the most modern and ac-
tive variation is 6...h5. White cannot take the bishop
3. Bb5 a6 with 7.hxg4 because Black plays 7...hxg4, attacking the
4. Bxc6 knight. If the knight moves, 8...Qh4 threatens checkmate
with 9...Qh2# or 9...Qh1#. After 8...Qh4, if White tries
Black may recapture on c6 with either pawn; though 9.f3, trying to escape via f2 after a queen check, Black
4...bxc6 is playable, 4...dxc6 is almost always chosen at replies 9...g3 with inevitable mate.
master level. Black has gained the bishop pair at the After 6...h5, the most common continuation is 7.d3 Qf6
cost of a weakened pawn structure, due to his doubled 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 and now an interesting line is:
pawns on c6 and c7. In the Exchange Variation, by ex- 10.hxg4!?. After 10...hxg4, 11.g3! offering back the
changing the "Spanish bishop", the White aims to reach piece (White should not try to hold onto the knight, as
an endgame in which he has the superior pawn structure, it would be similar to the position after 7.hxg4?? hxg4).
which may become an important factor, thus Black is After 11.g3 gxf3 12.Qxf3, White is safe and has the supe-
compelled to strive for an active position, generally avoid- rior pawn structure, which is considered to offer a small
ing piece exchanges. advantage in the ensuing queenless middlegame.

3.3.1 ECO codes 5...f6

There are two ECO classifications for the Exchange Vari- A move that was popular amongst masters during Fis-
ation. cher’s reign and is still popular today is 5...f6. White’s
26 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

most active and modern approach to this defense is 6.d4, If White can exchange all pieces, he has a big advantage
after which Black has two options: 6...Bg4 and 6...exd4. in the endgame, due to the pawn structure. Max Euwe
The move 6...Bg4 can be met also by two options: 7.dxe5 gave the pure pawn ending (without pieces—see diagram)
and 7.c3. On 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Rxd1 fxe5, White cannot resulting after the exchange of White’s d-pawn for Black’s
take the e5-pawn with the knight because the knight is e-pawn as a win for White, and the winning procedure is
pinned by the bishop. Multiple trades have occurred, detailed in (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:147–49).
however, bringing the position closer to an endgame,
which is beneficial for White since he has the better pawn
structure. 3.3.4 References
The second move against 5...f6 6.d4 is 6...exd4. White Notes
should play 7.Qxd4 (Fischer chose the more obscure
7.Nxd4 in two Exchange Variation games in his 1992
[1] ECO 2nd edition considers 8.b3, 8.c4, 8.Be3, 8.Nbd2,
match with Boris Spassky), offering a trade of queens
8.Rd1, 8.Re1, and 8.e5, with all lines leading to balanced
which Black should take or else he is clearly worse. After positions.
7...Qxd4 8.Nxd4 c5 9.Nb3 (9.Ne2 is another line; how-
ever Fischer often preferred 9.Nb3) and White will de-
Bibliography
velop freely by developing their bishop to e3, their b1
knight to c3 or d2 depending on the position and bringing
one of their rooks to d1, usually the rook on f1. • de Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings:
MCO-14, Random House Puzzles & Games, ISBN
0-8129-3084-3
5...Qd6
• Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2007), Secrets
of Pawn Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-
This is often called the Bronstein Variation. White’s pop-
1-904600-88-6
ular choices are 6.Na3 and 6.d3. After 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4,
this move permits 7...Bd7 followed by ...0-0-0. Other • Shaw, John (2003), Starting Out: The Ruy Lopez,
ways for White to proceed include 6.a4 or 6.c3. Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-321-7
• Taulbut, Shaun (1996), Understanding the Spanish,
5...Bd6 Batsford, ISBN 978-0-7134-7633-0

The other main move in the Barendregt Variation is

5...Bd6. White again goes 6.d4, where Black can play
3.3.5 Further reading
either 6...exd4 or 6...Bg4. • Kinsman, Andrew (1998), The Spanish Exchange,
The move 6...exd4 is not the best move. White captures Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-8471-3
the pawn back with 7.Qxd4 and stands clearly better. An
example of a massacre where Black is on the losing side
is as follows: 7...f6 8.Nc3[note 1] Bg4? 9.e5! attacking 3.4 Italian Game
the g4-bishop with the queen and the d6-bishop with the
pawn. After 9...Bxf3 10. exd6, Black cannot capture the
The Italian Game is a family of chess openings begin-
pawn because the f3-bishop is hanging, and after 10...Bh5
ning with the moves:
11.Re1+ Kf8 12.Qc5, attacking the bishop on h5 while
threatening dxc7 discovered check, winning the queen,
White has a winning advantage. 1. e4 e5

The move 6...Bg4 is the better move in this line. White 2. Nf3 Nc6
has a couple of possible moves, but the best line is 3. Bc4
7.dxe5 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Bxe5. Numerous trades have oc-
curred, so White is satisfied. After 9.Nd2 Ne7 10.Nc4 The Italian Game is one of the oldest recorded chess
Ng6 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Qg3 (Salazar–Smith, Groningen openings; it occurs in the Göttingen manuscript and was
1976/77), White had the upper hand (Gipslis). developed by players such as Damiano and Polerio in the
16th century, and later by Greco in 1620, who gave the
game its main line. It has been extensively analyzed for
3.3.3 Endgame more than 300 years. The term Italian Game is some-
times used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though
Max Euwe, 1940 that term also refers particularly to play after 3...Bc5. The
White wins with either side to move Italian is regarded as an Open Game, or Double King’s
Pawn game.
3.4. ITALIAN GAME
The opening’s defining move is the White bishop move
to c4 (the so-called "Italian bishop") in preparation for
an early attack on Black’s vulnerable f7-square. As
such the game is typified by aggressive play, where
Black’s best chances are often vigorous counterattacks.
Most grandmasters have largely abandoned the Italian
Game in favour of the Ruy Lopez (3.Bb5) and Scotch
(3.d4), considering those two openings better tries for
a long-term advantage, but the Italian is still popular in
correspondence chess, where players are allowed access
to published theory, and in games between amateurs.
3.4.1 Main variations
3...Bc5
Until the 19th century the main line of the Italian Game.
Dubbed the Giuoco Piano (“Quiet Game”) in contra-
distinction to the more aggressive lines then being de-
veloped, this continues 4.d3, the positional Giuoco Pi-
anissimo (“Very Quiet Game”), or the main line 4.c3 (the
original Giuoco Piano) leading to positions first analyzed
by Greco in the 17th century, and revitalized at the turn
of the 20th by the Moller Attack.
This variation also contains the aggressive Evans Gam-
bit (4.b4), the Jerome Gambit (4.Bxf7+), and the Italian 3.4.3 See also
Gambit (4.d4) – all 19th-century attempts to open up the
game.
3...Nf6
The more aggressive Two Knights Defense; again, this
is more in the nature of a counterattack, and some
(e.g. Chigorin) have proposed it be renamed so.
3.4.4 References
The Two Knights Defence contains the knife-edged
Traxler/Wilkes-Barre Variation, the aggressive Fegatello
(or Fried Liver) Attack, and the complex Max Lange At-
tack.
3...Be7
The Hungarian Defence, a solid, drawish game which is
often chosen in tournament play to avoid the complexities
and risks of the other lines.
3.4.2 Uncommon Black third moves
3...d6
The Semi-Italian Opening, a solid positional line; this
was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but
hardly seen now.
27
3...f5
The Rousseau Gambit. White does best to avoid the pawn
offer with 4.d3.
3...Nd4
This ostensibly weak third move by Black, known as the
Blackburne Shilling Gambit, is a false gambit expectant
upon White falling into the trap of capturing Black’s un-
defended e5-pawn with 4.Nxe5. While generally consid-
ered time-wasting against more experienced players due
to the loss Black is put at should the trap be avoided, it has
ensnared many a chess novice and could provide a quick
and easy mate against those unfamiliar with the line.
3...others
3...g6 allows White to attack with 4.d4 (4.d3 has also been
tried) exd4 5.c3! (5.Nxd4 and 5.Bg5 are also possible)
dxc3 6.Nxc3 Bg7 and now 7.Qb3 (Unzicker) or 7.Bg5
(O'Kelly).
Unzicker has analyzed 3...Qf6?! 4.Nc3 Nge7 5.Nb5 and
White has an advantage.
• Chess opening
• Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
• D. Bronstein: 200 Open Games (1973). Reprint
Dover Publications, 1991, ISBN 0-486-26857-8
• Burgess, Graham (2000), The Mammoth Book of
Chess (2nd ed.), Carroll & Graf, ISBN 978-0-7867-
0725-6
• Y. Estrin: The Two Knights Defence (1983) ISBN
0-7134-3991-2
• T. Harding and G. S. Botterill: The Italian Game
(1977), Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-3261-6
• D. Levy, K. O'Donnell: Oxford Encyclopaedia of
Chess Games Vol I (1485-1866) (1981) ISBN 0-19-
217571-8
• A. Matanović: Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Vol
C ( 1981) ISBN 0-7134-2697-7
• V. Zagororovsky: Romantic Chess Openings (1982)
ISBN 0-7134-3623-9
28 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.4.5 Further reading (6.Bd5!? is also possible) Bxd8 7.Nc3 Nf6. White can
also close the center with 5.d5 Nb8, followed by Bd3 and
• Colins, Sam (2005), Understanding the Chess Open- expansion on the queenside with c4, resulting in positions
ings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-904600-28-X resembling those from the Old Indian Defense. Finally,
with 5.Nc3 White can retain tension in the center and ob-
tain active piece play.
3.4.6 External links
Harding and Botterill, in their 1977 book on the Italian
Game, conclude that, “The Hungarian Defence can only
3.5 Hungarian Defense be played for a draw. White should have an edge in most
lines.”[3]
The Hungarian Defense is a chess opening that begins
with the moves:
3.5.3 See also
1. e4 e5 • List of chess openings
2. Nf3 Nc6
• List of chess openings named after places
3. Bc4 Be7

The Hungarian Defense is a line in the Italian Game typ- 3.5.4 Notes
ically chosen as a quiet response to the aggressive 3.Bc4.
[1] Harding & Botterill (1977), p. 130.
The opening is seldom seen in modern play.
The variation takes its name from a correspondence [2] Harding & Botterill (1977), pp. 130-31.
game between Paris and Pest, Hungary played from [3] Harding & Botterill (1977), p. 134.
1843–45, but was first analyzed by Cozio in the 18th
century.[1] It has been played on occasion by some
grandmasters with strong defensive-positional styles, in- 3.5.5 References
cluding Reshevsky, Hort, and former World Champions
Petrosian and Smyslov. • T. D. Harding and G. S. Botterill (1977). The Italian
With the move 3...Be7, Black avoids the complexities of Game. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6.
the Giuoco Piano (3...Bc5), Evans Gambit (3...Bc5 4.b4), • Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
and Two Knights Defense (3...Nf6). White has an advan- ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
tage in space and freer development, so Black must be 0-19-280049-3.
prepared to defend a cramped position.
• De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings:
MCO-14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN
3.5.1 4.d4 exd4 0-8129-3084-3.

White’s best response is 4.d4 when 4...exd4 5.Nxd4

would transpose into a variation of the Scotch Game that 3.6 Two Knights Defense
gives White a spatial advantage. Weaker is 5.c3, hop-
ing for 5...dxc3?! 6.Qd5!, after which Black resigned in
the game Midjord–Scharf, Nice Olympiad 1974 (though The Two Knights Defense is a chess opening that begins
Black could have tried 6...Nh6 7.Bxh6 0-0 when 8.Bc1?! with the moves:
Nb4 9.Qd1 c2 wins back the piece, so White should
play 8.Bxg7 Kxg7 9.Nxc3 with advantage.[1] ) However, 1. e4 e5
5...Na5!, recommended by Chigorin,[2] forces White to 2. Nf3 Nc6
give up the bishop pair with 6.Qxd4 or sacrifice a pawn.
3. Bc4 Nf6

3.5.2 4.d4 d6 First recorded by Polerio[1] (c. 1550 – c. 1610) in the

Alternatively, Black generally tries to hold the center with
4...d6, when White has a choice of plans, each of which
should be enough to secure a slight advantage. White
can simplify to a slightly better queenless middlegame
with 5.dxe5 dxe5 (5...Nxe5? 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5! and
White’s double attack on e5 and f7 wins a pawn) 6.Qxd8+
late 16th century, this line of the Italian Game was ex-
tensively developed in the 19th century. Black’s third
move is a more aggressive defense than the Giuoco Pi-
ano which would result from 3...Bc5. In fact, David
Bronstein suggested that the term “defense” does not fit,
and that the name “Chigorin Counterattack” would be
more appropriate.[2] The Two Knights has been adopted
3.6. TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE 29

as Black by many aggressive players including Mikhail main lines all are thought to lead to drawn or equal posi-
Chigorin and Paul Keres, and World Champions Mikhail tions, e.g. after 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Kg1, or even 7.Ke3.
Tal and Boris Spassky. In modern grandmaster play, White’s best try for an advantage is probably 5.Bxf7+
3.Bc4 is far less common than 3.Bb5 and the more solid Ke7 6.Bb3 (although 6.Bd5 was the move recommended
3...Bc5 is the usual reply, so the Two Knights Defense is by Lawrence Trent in his recent Fritztrainer DVD),[6] as
infrequently seen. It remains popular with amateur play- this poses Black the most problems. No grandmasters
ers. The theory of this opening has been explored exten- have regularly adopted the Wilkes-Barre as Black, but
sively in correspondence chess by players such as Hans Alexander Beliavsky and Alexei Shirov have played it oc-
Berliner and Yakov Estrin.
casionally even in top competition. No clear refutation is
known.
3.6.1 Main variations
4...d5 (the main line) After 4... d5 White has little
4.Ng5 option but to play 5. exd5, since both the bishop and e4
pawn are attacked. Then Black usually plays 5... Na5 but
German master Siegbert Tarrasch called 4.Ng5 a “duf- there are other options:
fer’s move” (ein richtiger Stümperzug) and Soviet open-
ing theorist Vasily Panov called it “primitive”, but this at-
tack on f7 practically wins a pawn by force. Despite Tar- • The recapture 5...Nxd5?! is extremely risky. Albert
rasch’s criticism, 4.Ng5 has remained a popular choice Pinkus tried to bolster this move with analysis in
for White and it has been played by World Champions 1943 and 1944 issues of Chess Review, but White
Wilhelm Steinitz, Bobby Fischer, Anatoly Karpov, Garry gets a strong attack with either the safe Lolli Vari-
Kasparov, and Viswanathan Anand. ation 6.d4! or the sacrificial Fried Liver (or Fe-
gatello) Attack 6.Nxf7!? Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3.
These variations are usually considered too difficult
4...Nxe4 4...Nxe4?! is considered unsound but must for Black to defend over the board, but they are
be handled carefully. 5.Nxe4 d5 poses no problems for sometimes used in correspondence play. Lawrence
Black. If 5.Nxf7? Qh4! 6.g3 (6.0-0 Bc5!) Qh3 7.Nxh8 Trent describes 5...Nxd5 as “a well-known bad
Qg2 8.Rf1 Nd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Qxg6+ Kd8 move” (or words to that effect).[6]
[3]
and Black has dangerous threats. Correct is 5.Bxf7+!
Ke7 6.d4! (6.d3 is also good) and now: • The Fritz Variation 5...Nd4 and Ulvestad’s Vari-
ation 5...b5 are related as they share a common
subvariation. American master Olav Ulvestad in-
1. 6...d5 7.Nc3! (best, discovered by Soviet player
troduced 5...b5 in a 1941 article in Chess Review.
Lopukhin; White has a clear advantage) Nxc3
White has only one good reply: 6.Bf1!, protecting
8.bxc3 Qd6 (8...Bf5 9.Qf3±; 8...e4 9.f3!) 9.a4!
[4][3] g2 so White can answer 6...Qxd5? with 7.Nc3. Both
Kd8 10.Bg8! Ke8 11.Bxh7± (Estrin).
6.Bxb5 Qxd5 7.Bxc6 Qxc6 and 6.dxc6 bxc4 7.Nc3
2. 6...h6 7.Nxe4 Kxf7 and now 8.dxe5 Qe8 9.f4 d6 are weak. Black’s best response is to transpose to the
10.0-0 (±) Kg8 11.Nbc3 dxe5 12. f5 Qf7 13.Nd5 Fritz Variation with 6...Nd4, making another advan-
Bd7 14.f6 g6 15.Ne7+! and White has excellent tage of 6.Bf1 apparent—the bishop is not attacked
chances (Estrin).[4][3] as it would be if White had played 6.Be2. Ger-
man master Alexander Fritz (1857–1932) suggested
5...Nd4 to Carl Schlechter, who wrote about the idea
4...Bc5 (Traxler Variation or Wilkes-Barre Varia- in a 1904 issue of Deutsche Schachzeitung. In 1907
tion) This bold move ignores White’s attack on f7 and Fritz himself wrote an article about his move in the
leads to wild play. Czech problemist Karel Traxler played Swedish journal Tidskrift för Schack. White’s best
it against Reinisch in Hostouň in 1896. Some decades reply is 6.c3, when the game often continues 6...b5
later, several Pennsylvania chess amateurs, (mainly K. 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 or 8.h4.
Williams) analyzed the variation and decided to name it
after their hometown Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, so to- Main line of Two Knights Defense, after 10...Bd6
day 4...Bc5 is known as both the Traxler Variation and (in
the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom[5] only) the Wilkes-
Barre Variation. After 5...Na5, Paul Morphy would play to hold the gambit
pawn with 6.d3. The Morphy Variation (or Kieseritzky
White can play 5.d4, 5.Nxf7, or 5.Bxf7+. After 5.d4 d5!, Attack) has not been popular, since it has long been
White’s best is to go into an equal endgame after 6.dxc5 known that Black obtains good chances for the pawn with
dxc4 7.Qxd8+. Other sixth moves have scored very badly 6...h6 7.Nf3 e4 8.Qe2 Nxc4 9.dxc4 Bc5. (Bronstein once
for White. tried the piece sacrifice 8.dxe4!? with success, but its
5.Nxf7 is very complicated after 5...Bxf2+. The current soundness is doubtful.[2][7] )
30 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

Instead, White usually plays 6.Bb5+, when play usually 4.d4

continues 6...c6 (6...Bd7 is also possible) 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Be2 h6. (The move 8.Qf3?!, popular in the nineteenth White can choose to develop rapidly with 4.d4 exd4 5.0-
century and revived by Efim Bogoljubov in the twentieth, 0. Now Black can equalize simply by eliminating White’s
is still played occasionally, but Black obtains a strong at- last center pawn with 5...Nxe4, after which White regains
tack after either 8...h6!, 8...Rb8, or 8...Be7.) White then the material with 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 but Black
has a choice of retreats for the knight. The usual move has a comfortable position after 8...Qa5 or 8...Qh5, or
here is 9.Nf3, after which Black obtains some initiative obtain good chances with the complex Max Lange At-
after 9...e4 10.Ne5 Bd6. This is the Knorre Variation tack after 5...Bc5 6.e5 d5. The extensively analyzed Max
(see diagram), and is considered to be the main line of Lange can also arise from the Giuoco Piano or Scotch
the Two Knights Defense. Both 11.d4 and 11.f4 have Game. White can choose to avoid these lines by playing
been tried here with no definitive conclusion. 10...Bc5 is 5.e5, a line often adopted by Sveshnikov. After 5.e5, ei-
a viable alternative for Black, as is 10...Qc7 (the Goring ther 5...Ne4 or 5...Ng4 is a playable reply, but most com-
Variation).[8] mon and natural is 5...d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5, with
sharp play. The tricky 5.Ng5?! is best met by 5...d5!
Steinitz favored 9.Nh3 instead, although it did not bring
6.exd5 Qe7+!.
him success in his famous 1891 cable match against Chig-
orin. The Steinitz Variation was mostly forgotten until
Fischer revived it in the 1960s. Nigel Short led a second 3.6.2 COTT
revival of 9.Nh3 in the 1990s, and today it is thought to be
about equal in strength to the more common 9.Nf3. In ad- Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit
dition to the moves 8.Be2 and 8.Qf3, the move 8.Bd3 is a Max Lange Attack
valid alternative that has apparently become fashionable Wilkes-Barre or Traxler Variation
in recent years.[6] Also note that after 5...Na5 6.Bb5+,
the reply 6...Bd7 by Black is a valid idea that has been
explored.[6] White must respond to the attack on his e-pawn. (For
explanation of notation, see chess opening theory table.)

4.Nc3 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6

The attempt to defend the pawn with 4.Nc3 does not work
well since Black can take the pawn anyway and use a fork 3.6.3 References
trick to regain the piece, 4.Nc3?! Nxe4! 5.Nxe4 d5. The
[1] Y.Estrin (1983). The Two Knight’s Defence. Batsford.
try 5.Bxf7+? does not help, as Black has the bishop pair
ISBN 0-7134-3991-2.
and a better position after 5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5. Instead,
4.Nc3 is usually played with the intent to gambit the e- [2] Bronstein, David (1991) [1973]. 200 Open Games.
pawn with the Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit, 4.Nc3 Nxe4 Dover. pp. 60–61. ISBN 0-486-26857-8.
5.0-0. This gambit is not commonly seen in tournament
[3] Harding & Botterill (1977), p. 66
play as it is not well regarded by opening theory, but it
can offer White good practical chances, especially in blitz [4] Estrin (1971), p. 67
chess.
[5] Elburg, John (2002). “New in Chess Year book issue 65”.
Chessbook Reviews. Chess Books. Retrieved 2010-04-30.
4.d3 [6] http://chessbase-shop.com/en/products/two_knight%
E2%80%98s_defence
The quiet move 4.d3 transposes into the Giuoco Pianis-
simo if Black responds 4...Bc5, but there are also inde- [7] Bronstein–Rojahn, Moscow Olympiad 1956 at
chessgames.com
pendent variations after 4...Be7 or 4...h6. White tries to
avoid the tactical battles that are common in other lines [8] Chess Openings Viewer, C59: Club Aranjuez de Ajedrez
of the Two Knights and to enter a more positional game.
The resulting positions take on some characteristics of [9] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=9&n=2569&
ms=e4.e5.Nf3.Nc6.Bc4.Nf6.d3.d5&ns=3.5.5.6.80.412.
the Ruy Lopez if White plays c3 and retreats the bishop
249.2569
to c2 via Bc4–b3–c2. This move became popular in the
1980s and has been used by John Nunn and others. Black
can confound White’s attempt to avoid tactical play with Bibliography
4...d5!?. This move is rarely played as opening theory
does not approve, but Jan Piński suggests that it is bet- • de Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings:
ter than is commonly believed. In practice after 5. exd5 MCO-14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN
White still has strong winning chances.[9] 0-8129-3084-3.
3.7. FRIED LIVER ATTACK 31

• Estrin, Yakov (1971). The Two Knights’ Defence This is the Two Knights Defense where White has cho-
(English ed.). Chess Ltd. sen the offensive line 4.Ng5, but Black’s last move is
risky (other Black choices include 5...Na5, 5...b5, and
• Harding, Tim; Botterill, G. S. (1977). The Italian 5...Nd4). White can now get an advantage with 6.d4 (the
Game. B. T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6. Lolli Attack). However, The Fried Liver Attack involves
a knight sacrifice on f7, defined by the moves:
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The
Oxford Companion To Chess. Oxford University.
ISBN 0-19-280049-3. 6. Nxf7 Kxf7

• New in Chess Yearbook 55. New in Chess. 2000. The Fried Liver Attack has been known for many cen-
ISBN 90-5691-069-8. turies, the earliest known example being a game [1] played
by Giulio Cesare Polerio before 1606.[2]
• Pinski, Jan (2003). The Two Knights Defence.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-283-0. The opening is classified as code C57 in the
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) .
• Unzicker, Wolfgang (1975). Knaurs Neues
Schachbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene.
Droemer Knaur. ISBN 3-426-02242-7. 3.7.1 Considerations
Position after 8.Nc3
3.6.4 Further reading
Play usually continues 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 (see diagram).
• Beliavsky, Alexander; Mikhalchishin, Adrian Black will play 8...Nb4 or 8...Ne7 and follow up with
(1999). The Two Knights Defense. Batsford. ISBN ...c6, bolstering his pinned knight on d5. If Black plays
978-0-7134-8441-0. 8...Nb4, White can force the b4 knight to abandon pro-
tection of the d5 knight with 9.a3?! Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1
• Tait, Jonathan (2004). The Two Knights Defence. 11.Nxd5, sacrificing a rook, but current analysis suggests
Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1857442830. that the alternatives 9.Qe4, 9.Bb3 and 9.O-O are stronger.
White has a strong attack, but it has not been proven yet
to be decisive.
3.6.5 External links
Because defence is harder to play than attack in this vari-
• Harding, Tim (March 2001). The Kibitzer: Two ation when given short time limits, the Fried Liver is
Knights Defense, Part 1 (PDF). Chesscafe.com. dangerous for Black in over-the-board play, if using a
short time control. It is also especially effective against
• Harding, Tim (April 2001). The Kibitzer: Two weaker players who may not be able to find the cor-
Knights Defense, Part 2 (PDF). Chesscafe.com. rect defences. Sometimes Black invites White to play
the Fried Liver Attack in correspondence chess or in
• Harding, Tim (May 2001). The Kibitzer: Two over-the-board games with longer time limits (or no time
Knights Defense, Part 3 (PDF). Chesscafe.com. limit), as the relaxed pace affords Black a better oppor-
tunity to refute the White sacrifice.

3.7 Fried Liver Attack 3.7.2 References

The Fried Liver Attack, also called the Fegatello At-
tack (named after an Italian idiom meaning “dead as
a piece of liver”), is a chess opening. This colourfully
named opening is a variation of the Two Knights Defense
in which White sacrifices a knight for an attack on Black’s
king. The opening begins with the moves:
[1] Polerio v Domenico, Rome 1610
[2] Polerio-Giovanni Domenico d'Arminio must have been
played before 1606 (Polerio’s last sign of life, see: Peter
Monté “The Classical Era of Modern Chess” (McFarland
2014), page 273)

1. e4 e5 3.7.3 Further reading

2. Nf3 Nc6
• Computer Analysis of the Fried Liver and Lolli, Dan
3. Bc4 Nf6 Heisman, Chessbase CHNESO001U
4. Ng5 d5
• Re-Fried Liver, by Jon Edwards, Chess Life, July
5. exd5 Nxd5?! 2009, pp. 32–34.
32 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.7.4 External links 3.8.2 Variations

• The Fried Liver Attack blog by GM Boris Alterman The main continuations on White’s fourth move are:
• Fried Liver Attack The Chess Website by Kevin
Butler • 4.c3 (the Greco Variation), see below.
• 4.d3 (the Giuoco Pianissimo, Italian: “Very Quiet
Game”), see below.
3.8 Giuoco Piano • 4.b4 (the Evans Gambit), in which White offers a
pawn to speed his development. This opening was
The Giuoco Piano (Italian: “Quiet Game"; pronounced popular in the 19th century, more than the standard
[dʒwɔːko ˈpjaːno]) is a chess opening beginning with the Giuoco Piano.
moves:
• 4.d4 (the Italian Gambit), in which White opens
1. e4 e5 up the center avoiding the quiet lines of the Giuoco
Piano and Giuoco Pianissimo.
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5 • 4.0-0, often with the intention of meeting 4...Nf6
with 5.d4, the Max Lange Gambit, with similar ideas
White’s "Italian bishop" at c4 prevents Black from ad- to the Italian Gambit but with some transpositional
vancing in the center with ...d5 and attacks the vulnerable differences.
f7-square. White plans to dominate the center with d2– • 4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 (the Jerome Gam-
d4 and to attack the black king. Black aims to free their bit), an unsound opening where White sacrifices two
own game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn pieces in the hope of exposing Black’s king and ob-
break ...d5, or to hold their center pawn at e5. taining a mating attack.
Common alternatives to 3...Bc5 include 3...Nf6 (the Two • 4.Nc3 (the Four Knights Variation).
Knights Defense) and 3...Be7 (the Hungarian Defense).
Much less common are 3...d6 (the Semi-Italian Open-
ing), 3...g6, 3...Nd4 (the Blackburne Shilling Gambit), Main line: 4.c3
and 3...f5.
In the main line (Greco Variation) White plays 4.c3 in
preparation for the central advance d2–d4. Black can try
3.8.1 History to hold a strong point in the center at e5 with 4...Qe7 or he
can counterattack with 4...Nf6. The center-holding line
The Giuoco Piano is one of the oldest recorded openings. can continue 4...Qe7 5.d4 Bb6 6.0-0 d6 7.a4 a6 8.h3 Nf6
The Portuguese Damiano played it at the beginning of the 9.Re1 0-0.
16th century and the Italian Greco played it at the begin-
ning of the 17th century. The opening is also known as The more aggressive 4...Nf6 was first analyzed by Greco
the Italian Game (Pinski 2005:5), although that name is in the 17th century. In the Greco Attack White uses a
also used to describe all games starting with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 major piece sacrifice to create a trap. Play continues:
Nc6 3.Bc4, regardless of Black’s third move (Gufeld & 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4
Stetsko 1996:5). The Giuoco Piano was popular through
Main line (Greco Attack)
the 19th century, but modern refinements in defensive
Position after 7...Nxe4
play have led most chess masters towards openings like
the Ruy Lopez that offer White greater chances for long
term initiative.
White can also try 6.e5, a line favoured by
In modern play, grandmasters have shown distinct pref- Evgeny Sveshnikov,[7] when play usually con-
erence for the slower and more strategic Giuoco Pi- tinues 6...d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.cxd4 Bb6, with ap-
anissimo (4.d3). Anatoli Karpov used the Giuoco Pi- proximate equality. Instead, White has a gam-
anissimo against Viktor Korchnoi twice in the 1981 bit alternative in 6.0-0, which Graham Burgess
World Championship tournament, with both games end- revived in the book 101 Chess Opening Sur-
ing in a draw;[1][2] Garry Kasparov used it against Joël prises; the critical line runs 6...Nxe4 7.cxd4 d5
Lautier at Linares 1994, resigning after 26 moves;[3] 8.dxc5 dxc4 9.Qe2. The other alternative 6.b4
Vladimir Kramnik chose it against Teimour Radjabov is refuted by the strong piece sacrifice 6...Bb6
at Linares (2004);[4] Viswanathan Anand used it to de- 7.e5 d5 8.exf6 dxc4 9.b5 0-0! according to
feat Jon Hammer in 2010;[5] and Magnus Carlsen used it Jeremy Silman.[8]
against Hikaru Nakamura at London 2011, winning in 41
moves.[6] 6... Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 (see diagram)
3.8. GIUOCO PIANO
Greco encouraged an attack on White’s a1-
rook with 8.0-0, allowing 8...Nxc3!? (9.bxc3
Bxc3? 10.Qb3. Now if Black takes the rook
with 10...Bxa1, White wins the black queen
with 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Ne7 13.Re1. This
trap is now well-known, and Black can avoid
it by playing 10...d5, or earlier, 8...Bxc3.) Af-
ter 8...Nxc3 9.bxc3, best for Black is 9...d5!
10.cxb4 dxc4 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Qa4+! Bd7
13.b5 0-0 14.Qxc4 Ng6!
In 1898 the Møller Attack revived this line;
Danish player Jørgen Møller published analy-
sis of the line in Tidsskrift for Skak (1898). In
the Møller Attack White sacrifices a pawn for
development and the initiative:
8. 0-0 Bxc3! 9. d5
9.bxc3 and 9.Qc2 are both fine alternatives.
9... Bf6
9...Ne5 is also interesting; a possible continua- if his bishop retreats to c2 via Bc4–b3–c2. The game can
tion is 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 f5 12.Qxc4 d6.
10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. Bg5 Bxg5 13. Nxg5 h6!? drawish reputation, this variation became more popular
13...0-0 14.Nxh7! is considered to lead to a
draw with best play, although Black has many
opportunities to go wrong.
14. Bb5+
After 14.Qe2 hxg5 15.Re1 Be6! 16.dxe6
(White also can try 16.Qd2 c6! 17.dxe6 f6
18.Bd3 d5 19.Rg4 Qc7 20.h3 0-0-0 21.b4,
attacking) 16...f6 17.Re3 c6 18.Rh3 Rxh3
19.gxh3 g6 it is doubtful that White has com-
pensation for the sacrificed pawn, according
to Grandmaster Larry Kaufman; 14.Qh5 0-0
15.Rae1 Ng6! also favors Black.
14... Bd7 15. Qe2 Bxb5 16. Qxb5+ Qd7 17. Qxb7
17.Qe2 Kf8 wins a second pawn.
17... 0-0
and Black is at least equal.
If White does not want to gambit material, instead of
7.Nc3 he can play 7. Bd2, which can continue 7...
3.8.4 References
Bxd2+ (Kaufman recommends 7...Nxe4!? 8.Bxb4 Nxb4 [1] Karpov vs Korchnoi, World Ch. Rematch (1981)
9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qb3+ d5!? [10...Kf8 11.Qxb4+ Qe7
12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 is safer, reaching an equal endgame] [2] Karpov vs Korchnoi, World Ch. Rematch (1981)
33
11.Ne5+ Ke6! 12.Qxb4 c5!?) 8. Nbxd2 d5 9. exd5
Nxd5 10. Qb3 Nce7 (10...Na5 is an alternative, invit-
ing a repetition of moves after 11.Qa4+ Nc6 [threaten-
ing 12...Nb6] 12.Qb3 Na5) 11. 0-0 0-0 12. Rfe1 c6. In
this position White has more freedom, but his isolated d-
pawn can be a weakness. Note: 7.Nd2 is also a viable
choice of move for White, although this still only offers
approximate equality. It has not been a popular choice
among human players, but it seems to be recommended
by computer engines.[9]
Giuoco Pianissimo: 4.d3
Giuoco Pianissimo
4.d3
With 4.d3, White plays the Giuoco Pianissimo (Italian:
“Very Quiet Game”). White aims for a slow buildup de-
ferring d2–d4 until it can be prepared. By avoiding an
immediate confrontation in the center White prevents the
early release of tension through exchanges and enters a
positional maneuvering game. If White plays c2–c3, the
position can take some characteristics of the Ruy Lopez
also retain an Italian flavour after c3 if White plays a4 and
b4, staking out space on the queenside. Despite its slow,
after being taken up by John Nunn in the 1980s. The
common move orders are 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3, and the trans-
position via the Bishop’s Opening: 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6
4.Nf3 Bc5 5.c3.
3.8.3 ECO codes
Codes from the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings are:
• C50 Italian Game, includes Giuoco Piano lines other
than 4.c3 and 4.b4
• C51 Evans Gambit
• C52 Evans Gambit, with 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5
• C53 Giuoco Piano, 4.c3:
• without 4...Nf6
• with 4...Nf6 but without 5.d4
• with 4...Nf6 5.d4 exd4 but without 6.cxd4
• C54 Giuoco Piano, 4.c3, with 4...Nf6 5.d4 exd4
6.cxd4
34 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

[3] Kasparov vs Lautier, Linares (1994) gambit in a friendly game against Bobby Fischer, in just
17 moves.[1] )
[4] Kramnik vs Radjabov, Linares (2004)
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has two codes for
[5] Anand vs Hammer, Arctic Securities Chess Stars (2010) the Evans Gambit, C51 and C52.
[6] Carlsen vs Nakamura, London (2011)
• C51: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
[7] The Steinitz-Sveshnikov Attack
• C52: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3
[8] Giuoco Piano - A nice piece sacrifice Ba5
[9] World Computer Chess Championship 2011
3.9.1 History
Bibliography
The gambit is named after the Welsh sea Captain William
• Gufeld, Eduard; Stetsko, Oleg (1996), The Giuoco Davies Evans, the first player known to have employed
Piano, Batsford, ISBN 978-0-7134-7802-0 it. The first game with the opening is considered to
be Evans–McDonnell, London 1827, although in that
• Harding, Tim; Botterill, G. S. (1977). The Italian game a slightly different move order was tried (1.e4 e5
Game. B. T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 d6 and only now 5.b4). In
1832, the first analysis of the gambit was published in the
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
Second Series of Progressive Lessons (1832) by William
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
Lewis.[2] The gambit became very popular shortly after
0-19-280049-3.
that, being employed a number of times in the series of
• Kaufman, Larry (2004). The Chess Advantage in games between McDonnell and Louis de la Bourdonnais
Black and White. McKay Chess Library. ISBN 0- in 1834. Players such as Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy
8129-3571-3. and Mikhail Chigorin subsequently took it up. Eventually
however, the second World Chess Champion Emanuel
• Pinski, Jan (2005), Italian Game and Evans Gambit, Lasker dealt a heavy blow to the opening with a mod-
Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-373-8 ern defensive idea: returning the pawn under favorable
circumstances. The opening was out of favour for much
of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan Tim-
3.9 Evans Gambit man played some games with it in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, and in the 1990s Garry Kasparov used it in a
few of his games (notably a famous 25-move win against
The Evans Gambit is a chess opening characterised by Viswanathan Anand in Riga, 1995), which prompted a
the moves: brief revival of interest in it.[3]
The famous Evergreen game opened with the Evans
1. e4 e5
Gambit.
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
3.9.2 General remarks
4. b4
Accepted
The Evans Gambit is an aggressive line of the Giuoco Pi-
ano, which normally continues with the positional moves The most obvious and most usual way for Black to meet
4.c3 or 4.d3. White offers a pawn to divert the Black the gambit is to accept it with 4...Bxb4, after which White
Bishop on c5. If Black accepts, White can follow up with plays 5.c3 and Black usually follows up with 5...Ba5
c3 and d4, ripping open the center, while also opening (5...Be7 and, less often 5...Bc5 and 5...Bd6, the Stone
diagonals to play Ba3 or Qb3 at some point, preventing Ware Variation, are also played). White usually follows
Black from castling kingside and threatening the f7-pawn up with 6.d4. Emanuel Lasker's line is 4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5
respectively. If Black declines, the b4 pawn stakes out 6.d4 d6 7.0-0 Bb6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5
space on the queenside, and White can follow up with a4 Be6. This variation takes the sting out of White’s attack
later in the game, potentially gaining a tempo by threat- by returning the gambit pawn and exchanging queens,
ening to trap Black’s dark-square Bishop. According to and according to Fine, the resulting simplified position “is
Reuben Fine, the Evans Gambit poses a challenge for psychologically depressing for the gambit player” whose
Black since the usual defenses (play ...d6 and/or give back intent is usually an aggressive attack. Chigorin did a lot
the gambit pawn) are more difficult to pull off than with of analysis on the alternative 9.Qb3 Qf6 10.Bg5 Qg6
other gambits. (Interestingly, Fine was beaten by this 11.Bd5 Nge7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Nxe5
3.9. EVANS GAMBIT 35

Qe6, which avoids the exchange of queens, but reached 5...Bc5

no clear verdict. Instead White often avoids this line with
7.Qb3 Qd7 8.dxe5, when Black can return the pawn with According to Chessgames.com, this is the second most
8...Bb6 or hold onto it with 8...dxe5, though White ob- popular retreat, with White scoring better than after
tains sufficient compensation in this line. 5...Ba5. This is often played by people unfamiliar with
Alternatively Black can meet 6.d4 with 6...exd4, when the Evans Gambit, but is arguably not as good as 5...Ba5,
White can try 7.Qb3, a move often favoured by Nigel because 6.d4 attacks the bishop and narrows down Black’s
Short. 7.0-0 is traditionally met by 7...Nge7 intending options as compared with 5...Ba5 6.d4.
to meet 8.Ng5 or 8.cxd4 with 8...d5, returning the pawn
in many lines, rather than the materialistic 7...dxc3 which
is well met by 8.Qb3 with a very dangerous initiative for 5...Be7
the sacrificed pawns. Alternatively 7...d6 8.cxd4 Bb6 is
known as the Normal Position, in which Black is con- This has often been considered one of the “safer” retreats,
tent to settle for a one-pawn advantage and White seeks and has been played by Viswanathan Anand. After 6.d4
compensation in the form of open lines and a strong cen- Na5, White can attempt to maintain an initiative with
tre. 7.Be2 as played by Kasparov, or immediately recapture
the pawn with 7.Nxe5.

Declined 5...Bd6

Alternatively the gambit can be declined with 4...Bb6, This is called the Stone–Ware Defense after Henry
when 5.a4 a6 is the normal continuation. But due to the Nathan Stone and Preston Ware. The move reinforces
loss of tempo involved, most commentators consider de- the e5-pawn and has been played by several grandmas-
clining the Evans Gambit to be weaker than accepting it, ters such as Andrei Volokitin, Alexander Grischuk and
then giving up the pawn at a later stage. Also, Black can Loek van Wely.
play the rare Countergambit Variation (4...d5), but this is
thought to be rather dubious.
However, in the book My System, Aron Nimzowitsch 5...Bf8
states that by declining the gambit Black has not lost a
tempo, since the move b4 was, in the sense of develop- This is called the Mayet Defense and is played very
ment, unproductive, “as is every pawn move, if it does rarely.
not bear a logical connection with the centre. For sup-
pose after 4...Bb6 5.b5 (to make a virtue of necessity and
attempt something of a demobilizing effect with the ill- 3.9.4 References in Popular Culture
moved b-pawn move), 5...Nd4 and now if 6.Nxe5, then
6...Qg5 with a strong attack.”[4] In The West Wing episode “Hartsfield’s Landing,” Pres-
ident Bartlet references the Evans Gambit while playing
chess with Toby Ziegler.
3.9.3 Bishop retreats after accepting the BARTLET: Taiwan’s not gonna be our topic. Ah, the
gambit Evans Gambit!
TOBY: There’s no such thing as the Evans Gambit.
After 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3, the Bishop must move or be cap-
BARTLET: A variation of the Giuoco Piano opening,
tured. The common retreats are listed here, with the good
named after a British sea captain, W.D. Evans, who in-
and bad sides of each:
vented it in 1820 - don't tell me chess moves.
TOBY: I moved my pawn.

5...Ba5 BARTLET: Well, it’s as popular today as it was back

then.[5]
According to Chessgames.com, this is Black’s most pop-
ular retreat. It gets out of the way of White’s centre
pawns, and pins the c3 pawn if White plays 6.d4, but it 3.9.5 See also
has the disadvantage of removing the a5-square for the
black queen’s knight. Black usually subsequently retreats • List of chess openings
the bishop to b6 to facilitate ...Na5, which is particularly
strong when White opts for the Bc4, Qb3 approach. • List of chess openings named after people
36 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.9.6 Notes 1. e4 e5

[1] “Fischer–Fine 1963 1–0”.

[2] The British chess magazine, vol. 26 (1906) page 51.
[3] “Garry Kasparov vs Viswanathan Anand”. chess-
games.com.
[4] Aron Nimzowitsch, My System: Winning Chess Strategies,
Snowball Publishing, 2012, p. 11.
[5] http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=
getTranscript&id=59
3.9.7 References
• Harding, Tim and Bernard Cafferty (1997). Play the
Evans Gambit. Cadogan. ISBN 1-85744-119-2.
• ChessCafe.com article about the Evans Gambit
(PDF)
• Handbuch des Schachspiels
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. d4
It is often played as an alternative to the quiet and closed
lines of the Giuoco Piano or Giuoco Pianissimo openings.
Black can:
• take with the pawn (4...exd4, a transposition to the
Scotch Gambit, usually leading to the Max Lange
Attack);
• take with the knight (4...Nxd4), which is considered
weak since it allows the strong 5.Nxe5, attacking f7
with the bishop and knight; or
• take with the bishop (4...Bxd4), which is considered
best.

• Fine, Reuben (1990). Ideas Behind the Chess Open- 3.10.1 4...Bxd4
ings. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-1756-1.
After 4... Bxd4 5. Nxd4 Nxd4, George Koltanowski
• Rohde, Michael (1997). The Great Evans Gambit favoured 6.0-0, which transposes to the related gambit
Debate. Thinkers’ Press. ISBN 0-938650-75-0. line 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 following 6...Nf6, when 7.f4 and
7.Bg5 are the main possibilities for White. However,
• Yvinec, Jean-Marc (2012). Mon Gambit Evans.
6...d6!? is an independent alternative for Black.
auto-édition. ISBN 979-10-91279-00-0.
White can also deviate with 6.Be3, which was dubbed the
Miami Variation by Jude Acers and George Laven, and
3.9.8 External links which probably suffices for dynamic equality.
The other alternative 6.f4?! is considered dubious due to
• Evans Gambit video and analysis 6...d5.
• Overview of Evans Gambit

• Chessbase stats 3.10.2 See also

• Kibitzer article, part one (PDF file) • Italian Game
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
• List of chess openings
(5174 games)

• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 • List of chess openings named after places
d5 (33 games)

• Fischer–Fine 1963 1–0 3.10.3 References

• “The Evans Gambit” by Edward Winter
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
3.10 Italian Gambit
• Acers, Jude; Laven, George (2003). The Italian
The Italian Gambit is a chess opening that begins with Gambit (and) A Guiding Repertoire for White–1.e4!.
the moves: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1-55369-604-2.
3.12. JEROME GAMBIT
3.11 Irish Gambit
Irish Gambit after 4.d4
The Irish Gambit, Chicago Gambit, or Razzle Dazzle
Gambit, is a weak chess opening that begins:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nxe5?
intending 3...Nxe5 4.d4 (see diagram).
3.11.1 Discussion
White’s pawns occupy the center, but the sacrifice of a
knight for a pawn is a very high price to pay. The gam-
bit is accordingly considered unsound, and is never seen
in high-level play. It is often referred to as the Chicago
Gambit, perhaps because Harold Meyer Phillips, remark-
ably, used it in an 1899 game in a simultaneous exhibi-
tion in Chicago to beat Harry Nelson Pillsbury, one of the
strongest players in the world at the time.[1]
An apocryphal tale is told of the anonymous inventor of
the gambit. On his deathbed, when asked what subtle idea
lay behind the gambit, his last words were reportedly: “I
hadn't seen the king’s pawn was defended.”[2]
A similar line is the Halloween Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5?! It is also considered dubious,
but is sounder than the Irish Gambit, because White can
gain time by chasing both of Black’s knights while occu- In the third edition of the opening treatise Chess Openings,
pying the center. White has won a number of short games Ancient and Modern (1896), the authors wrote:
with the Halloween Gambit.
3.11.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
3.11.3 References
[1] Harold Meyer Phillips vs Harry Nelson Pillsbury, Chicago
1899, Chessgames.com, retrieved 2006-11-18
[2] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996), “Irish Gambit”,
The Oxford Companion To Chess (2 ed.), Oxford Univer-
sity, p. 182, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
3.11.4 External links
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5 (13
games)
37
3.12 Jerome Gambit
The Jerome Gambit is an unsound chess opening which
is an offshoot of the Giuoco Piano. It is characterized by
the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. Bxf7+? Kxf7
5. Nxe5+ Nxe5
White sacrifices two pieces in hopes of exposing Black’s
king and obtaining a mating attack. The line is virtually
never seen today (and never seen in high-level chess), but
was known in the late 19th century.
3.12.1 Discussion
The opening is named after Alonzo Wheeler Jerome
(1834-1902) of Paxton, Illinois, who had a game with
this opening against the problemist William Shinkman
published in the Dubuque Chess Journal in 1876.[1]
Blackburne wrote of it, “I used to call this the Kentucky
opening. For a while after its introduction, it was greatly
favoured by certain players, but they soon grew tired of
it.”[2] Blackburne’s name for the opening may have arisen
from confusion with 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, which was also pub-
lished in the Dubuque Chess Journal and dubbed the
“Kentucky Opening” there.
The Jerome Gambit is an American inven-
tion, and a very risky attack. It is described
in the American Supplement to Cook’s Synop-
sis as unsound but not to be trifled with. The
first player sacrifices two pieces for two pawns,
with the chances arising from the adversary’s
king being displaced, and drawn into the cen-
tre of the board.[3]
Similarly, du Mont wrote that it “is unsound, but has the
saving grace of leading to a lively game and is therefore
suitable for an occasional friendly game. The defender
cannot afford to be careless.”[4]
White may regain one of the two sacrificed pieces with
6.d4, but Black retains a decisive material advantage with
6...Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Qf6.[5] More commonly, White plays
6.Qh5+. In that event, Freeborough and Ranken analyzed
two lines. One is 6...Kf8 7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf5+ Ke8 9.Nc3
d6 10.Qf3 Qf7 11.Qe2 Nh6 12.0-0 c6, with large advan-
tage to Black.[5] Freeborough and Ranken also analyze
the bold 6.Qh5+ Ke6!? (“follow[ing] out Mr. Steinitz’s
38 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

theory that the King is a strong piece”) 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4
(or 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5) Bxd4 9.Na3 c6 10.c3 Qf6
11.cxd4 Qxf5 12.exf5 Nf7 13.Bf4+ Ke7, again with a
large advantage.[5] A bad line for Black after 6.Qh5+ is
6... Kf6?? 7. Qf5+ Ke7 8. Qxe5+ Kf7 9. Qxc5, regain-
ing both pieces and winning two pawns.[6]
• Gary Lane. “Opening Lanes #158 - A Game of
Shadows” (PDF). chesscafe.com. Archived from
the original on June 12, 2012.
• Gary Lane. “Opening Lanes #159 - Trash or Trea-
sure?" (PDF). chesscafe.com. Archived from the
original on May 10, 2012.

3.12.2 Illustrative game • Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5
4.Bxf7+ (3 games)
N.N. vs. Blackburne
Position after 12.Kh1
3.13 Blackburne Shilling Gambit
[7]
N.N. versus Blackburne, England 1880
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+? Kxf7 5. The Blackburne Shilling Gambit is the name face-
Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ g6 Seirawan and Minev observe tiously given to a dubious chess opening, derived from
that after 6...Kf8 7.Qxe5 d6 or 6...Ng6 7.Qxc5 d6 White an offshoot of the Italian Game, that begins:
has insufficient compensation for the sacrificed piece, but
Blackburne likes to attack.[8] 7. Qxe5 d6? Blackburne
1. e4 e5
remarks, “Not to be outdone in generosity.”,[2] however
after 7...Qe7! White cannot safely take the rook. 8. 2. Nf3 Nc6
Qxh8 Qh4 9. 0-0 Nf6 10. c3? Better is 10.Qd8![8] 3. Bc4 Nd4?!
10... Ng4 11. h3 Bxf2+ 12. Kh1 (see diagram) 12...
Bf5! 13. Qxa8 Qxh3+! 14. gxh3 Bxe4#. Having ac-
cepted White’s sacrifice of two minor pieces, Blackburne It is also sometimes referred to as the Kostić Gambit af-
responded by returning the knight, then sacrificing both ter the Serbian grandmaster Borislav Kostić, who played
rooks and his queen to deliver checkmate with his three it in the early 20th century.[1]
remaining minor pieces.

3.13.1 History
3.12.3 References
Wilhelm Steinitz made the first known mention of this
[1] Rick Kennedy,The Life of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, blog line, noting it in 1895 in the Addenda to his Modern Chess
post, July 27 2009 Instructor, Part II.[2] The earliest game with the open-
ing on chessgames.com, Dunlop–Hicks, New Zealand
[2] Joseph Henry Blackburne, Mr. Blackburne’s Games at Championship, dates from 1911.[3] Another early game,
Chess, selected, annotated and arranged by himself mentioned by Bill Wall, is Muhlock–Kostić, Cologne,
[3] E. Freeborough and Rev. C. E. Ranken, Chess Openings,
1912.[1][4]
Ancient and Modern, Third Edition, Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner and Co., London, 1896, p. 85.
3.13.2 Analysis
[4] J. du Mont, 200 Miniature Games of Chess, David McKay,
1965, p. 147. Black’s third move is, objectively speaking, a weak, time-
wasting move. Steinitz recommended 4.0-0 or 4.Nxd4
[5] Freeborough and Ranken, p. 86.
in response.[2] International Master Jeremy Silman writes
[6] Larry Evans, Chess Catechism, 1970, ISBN 0-671-20491- that White has an advantage after 4.0-0, 4.c3, or 4.Nc3.
2 He recommends as best 4.Nxd4! exd4 5.c3 d5 6.exd5
Qe7+ 7.Kf1 +/=, when 5...Bc5? loses a pawn to 6.Bxf7+!
[7] N.N.–Blackburne, England 1880 Kxf7 7.Qh5+.[5]
The only virtue of 3...Nd4 is that it sets a trap that has
[8] Yasser Seirawan and Nikolay Minev, Take My Rooks, In-
ensnared many players. After the natural 4.Nxe5!?, Black
ternational Chess Enterprises, 1991, p. 66. ISBN 1-
879479-01-X. wins material with 4...Qg5! Now the obvious 5.Nxf7??
loses to 5...Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#, a smothered
mate. This trap is what gives the line its name; the great
3.12.4 External links English master Joseph Henry Blackburne reputedly used
it to win shillings from amateurs.[1] However, Wall has
• Rick Kennedy. “Jerome Gambit theory and prac- questioned this, stating that there are no recorded games
tice”. of Blackburne with the opening.[1]
3.14. SCOTCH GAME
The opening is not a true gambit, since White cannot
take the pawn on e5 without losing material. However,
after 4.Nxe5 Qg5, White can maintain a playable game
with 5.Bxf7+! Steinitz wrote that this move, “followed
by castling, is now White’s best chance and in some mea-
sure a promising one, considering that he has two Pawns
and the attack for the piece”.[2] After 5...Ke7? (5...Kd8!?
6.0-0 [6.Ng4? Nh6!−+] +/=) 6.0-0 Qxe5 7.Bxg8 (7.Bc4
is also possible) Rxg8 8.c3 Nc6 (8...Ne6 9.d4! Qxe4?
10.d5 Nf4?? 11.Re1 pins Black’s queen against his king
and wins; Silman analyzes 9...Qf6 10.f4 when "[w]ith
two pawns and an attack for the sacrificed piece, White’s
compensation isn’t in doubt”.[5] ) 9.d4, White’s two extra
pawns, strong center, and lead in development, combined
with Black’s awkwardly placed king, give White strong
compensation for the sacrificed knight. G. Chandler–
NN, Stockbridge 1983, concluded 9...Qa5? (9...Qf6
10.e5 Qf7 may be best) 10.d5 Ne5? 11.Qh5! Nf7?
(11...d6 12.Bg5+ Kd7 13.Qxh7 also wins for White)
12.d6+! 1–0 (in light of 13.Qxa5).
Graham Burgess writes that 3...Nd4 is also known as the
“Oh my God!" trap, as for full effect, Black is supposed
to make this exclamation, pretending to have accidentally
blundered the e-pawn. Burgess condemns this behavior
as unethical, and notes that the trap, if avoided, leaves
White with a large advantage.[6]
3.13.3 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
3.13.4 References
[1] Bill Wall (2005), The Blackburne Shilling Gambit
[2] Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor, Edition ed. 1896 p. 53). It is often described today as a strate-
Olms Zürich, 1990 (reprint), p. 63 of Part II. ISBN 3- gic error, since after 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.Qxd4 (5.Bc4 is the
283-00111-1.
[3] Dunlop–Hicks, New Zealand Championship 1911.
[4] Muhlock–Kostić, Köln 1912
[5] Jeremy Silman (2004), Two Wild Black Systems
[6] Graham Burgess, The Mammoth Book of Chess, Carroll &
Graf, 1997, pp. 122–23. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
3.13.5 External links
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 11...Be6, “White has at most this indescribable nothing-
(635 games)
39
3.14 Scotch Game
The Scotch Game, or Scotch Opening, is a chess open-
ing that begins with the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4
Ercole del Rio, in his 1750 treatise Sopra il giuoco degli
Scacchi, Osservazioni pratiche d’anonimo Autore Mode-
nese (“On the game of Chess, practical Observations by
an anonymous Modenese Author”), was the first author
to mention what is now called the Scotch Game.[1] The
opening received its name from a correspondence match
in 1824 between Edinburgh and London. Popular in the
19th century, by 1900 the Scotch had lost favour among
top players because it was thought to release the cen-
tral tension too early and allow Black to equalise with-
out difficulty. More recently, grandmasters Garry Kas-
parov and Jan Timman helped to re-popularize the Scotch
when they used it as a surprise weapon to avoid the well-
analysed Ruy Lopez.
3.14.1 Analysis
White aims to dominate the centre by exchanging his d-
pawn for Black’s e-pawn. Black usually plays 3...exd4,
as he has no good way to maintain his pawn on e5 (this
same position can be reached by transposition from the
Centre Game 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6). After 3...d6,
White is better after 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4,
or he may simply play 4.Bb5, when 4...exd4 5.Nxd4 Bd7
transposes to the Steinitz Defense in the Ruy Lopez.
3...Nxd4 is possible, though rarely played today by strong
players. It was popular in the 19th century, and receives
five columns of analysis in Freeborough and Ranken’s
opening manual Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (3rd
Napoleon Gambit) White’s queen stands on a central
square, and is not developed too early since it cannot be
chased away very effectively (5...c5? is a seriously weak-
ening move that blocks Black’s king’s bishop). Nonethe-
less, the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (volume 3, 3rd
edition 1997, p. 251 n.28, referring to p. 252 line 1)
concludes that Black equalises with 5...Ne7 6.Bc4 Nc6
7.Qd5 Qf6 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Be2 c6 10.Qb3 Ng6 11.f4 Bc5+
12.Kh1 d6. Similarly, Harald Keilhack concludes in
Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3 (p. 21) that although ...Nxd4
is a “non-line” these days, if Black continues perfectly it
is not clear that White gets even a small advantage. Keil-
hack analyses 5.Qxd4 d6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0
9.Bg5 c6 10.a4 Qa5 11.Bh4 and now after 11...Qe5 or
ness which is the advantage of the first move.” (Id. p. 25)
40 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings also concludes that Schmidt Variation: 4...Nf6 After 4...Nf6 White has
Black equalises after the alternative 4.Nxe5 Ne6 5.Bc4 5.Nxc6 (the Mieses Variation) or 5.Nc3 (the Scotch
Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Be3 d6 8.Nd3 Nxe4 10.Nxe4 Four Knights Game). After 5.Nc3 almost always played
d5 (p. 251 n.28). is 5...Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.0-0 0-
After the usual 3...exd4, White can respond with the main 0 10.Bg5 c6. After 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5
line 4.Nxd4 or can play a gambit by offering Black one or 8.c4 is also very common. Where these main lines end,
two pawns in exchange for rapid development. the first real opening decisions are made, which are too
specific for this survey.

3.14.2 Main variations

Steinitz Variation: 4...Qh4!? Steinitz’s 4...Qh4!? al-
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4, the most important most wins a pawn by force, but White gets a lead in de-
continuations are: velopment and attacking chances as compensation. As
of 2005, White’s most successful line has been 5.Nc3
Bb4 6.Be2 Qxe4 7.Nb5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Kd8 9.0-0, when
• 4.Nxd4 (Main line)
Black’s awkwardly placed king has generally proven more
• 4...Bc5 (Classical Variation) significant than his extra pawn.
• 4...Nf6 (Schmidt Variation)
• 4...Qh4!? (Steinitz Variation) Scotch Gambit: 4.Bc4
• 4...Qf6
Scotch Gambit (4.Bc4)
• 4...Nxd4?!
• 4...Bb4+?!
Instead of 4.Nxd4, White has two ways to offer a gambit.
• 4.Bc4 (Scotch Gambit) The Scotch Gambit (which is the line recommended by
GM Lev Alburt in his book Chess Openings for White, Ex-
• 4.c3 (Göring Gambit) plained) starts with 4.Bc4. Black can transpose into the
• 4.Bb5 Two Knights Defense with 4...Nf6 or he can continue the
Scotch with 4...Bc5 5.c3 and now 5...Nf6 will transpose
into a safe variation of the Giuoco Piano. Black can in-
Main line: 4.Nxd4 stead accept the gambit with 5...dxc3 but this is riskier
because White will gain a lead in development. A possi-
Main line (4.Nxd4) ble continuation is 6.Nxc3 (the main alternative, favoured
by Grandmaster Sveshnikov, is 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qd5+
In the main line after 4.Nxd4, Black has two major op- followed by 8.Qxc5) 6...d6 7.Bg5 (7.Qb3 is dubious as
tions. Either 4...Bc5 or 4...Nf6 offers Black good chances 7...Qd7 8 Nd5 Nge7 9 Qc3 0–0 10 0–0 Nxd5! 11 exd5
for an equal game. Ne5 12 Nxe5 dxe5 13.Qxe5 Bd6 is good for Black, but
7.0-0 may also be good) 7...Nge7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Nd5.

Classical Variation: 4...Bc5 Main article: Scotch

Game, Classical Variation Göring Gambit: 4.c3

After 4...Bc5 White has 5.Nxc6, 5.Be3, or 5.Nb3. After
5.Nxc6 play almost always continues 5...Qf6 (Black does
not lose a piece on c6 because he is threatening mate with
6...Qxf2) 6.Qd2 dxc6 7.Nc3. On 5.Be3 play almost al-
ways continues 5...Qf6 6.c3 Nge7 7.Bc4 (as proposed by
IM Gary Lane in Winning with the Scotch) {many seventh
move alternatives for white are possible here. 7.g3 for
example} 0-0 {7...Ne5 is more often played than castles
after 7.Bc4. Play usually continues 8.Be2 Qg6 (although
8...d5 is also possible) 9.0-0 Here, black has the option
of taking the unprotected pawn on e4 but it is considered
“poisoned"}[2] 8.0-0 Bb6 where the position is roughly
equal. On 5.Nb3 play almost always continues 5...Bb6
6.a4 a6 7.Nc3. Another plan for White is to play 6.Nc3,
followed by (in some order) Qe2, Be3, h4 and castling
long.
Göring Gambit (4.c3)
The Göring Gambit is a relative of the Danish Gambit
that starts with 4.c3. White sacrifices one or two pawns
in return for a lead in development, and typically fol-
lows up by putting pressure on f7 with Bc4, Qb3 and
sometimes Ng5, while Nc3-d5 is another common mo-
tif. The Oxford Companion to Chess notes that the gambit
was first played at high levels by Howard Staunton in the
1840s, and the earliest game with it was probably played
in 1843.[3] The first game with the gambit accepted may
be Meek vs Morphy, New York 1857.[4] Carl Theodor
Göring introduced it into master play in 1872, but while
Göring’s name is most often associated with the one-
pawn gambit (5.Nxc3) Göring invariably used the double-
pawn gambit with 5.Bc4. The gambit has been played
3.14. SCOTCH GAME
by Ljubomir Ljubojević, David Bronstein, Frank Mar-
shall, and Jonathan Penrose. In casual games Alexander
Alekhine often transposed to it via the move order 1.e4 e5
2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3, when ...Nc6 for Black and
Nf3 for White often followed. In general, the opening
is unpopular at master level but is more popular at club
level. It is recommended to study the Göring Gambit in
connection with the Danish.
4...d5 Black can equalise by transposing to the Danish
declined with 4...d5, when the critical line runs 5.exd5
Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be2 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4
(or 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4, lead-
ing to the same position), often referred to as the Capa-
blanca Variation in view of the strength of Black’s con-
cept in the game Marshall-Capablanca, Lake Hopatcong
1926.[5] This line (which can also arise from the Chigorin
Defense to the Queen’s Gambit),[6] forcing White to ei-
ther exchange queens or forgo the right to castle with
the risky 10.Be3, deters many players from employing
this gambit. Equal endgames result after either 10.Qb3
Qxb3 11.axb3 Nge7 or 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qe2+ Qxe2+
12.Kxe2 Ne7. If Black avoids steering for Capablanca’s
ending, e.g. with 6...Nf6 or 7...0-0-0 in the above lines,
then White obtains good piece play in return for the iso-
lated d-pawn. White can deviate with 6...Bg4 7.Nc3,
with the idea of meeting 7...Bb4 with 8.a3 (or 6...Bb4+
7.Nc3 Bg4 8.a3)[7] or the rare 5.Bd3,[8] neither of which
promise an advantage but which avoid those endings.
Other ways of declining Black can also decline with
4...Nf6, transposing to a line of the Ponziani Opening.
The continuation 5.e5 Ne4 was endorsed by Danger-
ous Weapons, 1.e4 e5 (Everyman Chess, 2008) but Tim
Harding considers 5...Nd5 a better try for equality,[9]
when White can continue 6.Bb5 a6 7.Ba4 Nb6 8.Bb3,
6.Qb3, 6.Bc4 or 6.cxd4. Another possibility is 4...Nge7
intending 5...d5, when the critical continuation is 5.Bc4
d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.0-0. According to IM John Watson
Black may be able to equalise with 7...Be7.[10] However,
declining with 4...d3 allows White some advantage after
5.Bxd3 d6 6.Bf4 Be7 7.h3 Nf6 8.Nbd2 Bd7 9.Qc2 ac-
cording to Batsford Chess Openings 2.
One-pawn gambit: 4...dxc3 5.Nxc3 If Black accepts
• List of chess openings named after places
the gambit with 4...dxc3, White can commit to sacrific-
ing only one pawn with 5.Nxc3. Black’s most critical
response is generally considered to be 5...Bb4,[11] when 3.14.4 References
White does not get enough compensation after 6.Bc4 d6
7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nf6!, when 9.Ba3 Bg4 is insufficient Notes
and 9.e5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qb3 (11.Qxd8+ Kxd8
12.Bxf7 Ke7 is also good for Black) 11...Qe7 12.Ba3
[1] Harry Golombek, Chess: A History, G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
c5 does not give enough compensation for two pawns.
White can deviate with 7.Qb3, when the old main line
runs 7...Qe7 8.0-0 Bxc3, and here 9.Qxc3 gives White [2] Chess Openings from Swedish Chess TV-program “Chess
good compensation. Thus both John Watson and USCF
41
master Mark Morss recommend 7...Bxc3+, in order to
meet 8.Qxc3 with 8...Qf6! when White loses too much
time with the queen. Thus White often continues 8.bxc3
when 8...Qe7 9.0-0 Nf6 can be met by 10.e5 (transposing
back to lines arising from 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nf6 9.e5,
though these are insufficient for White) or the relatively
unexplored 10.Bg5. Other deviations for White include
7.Ng5 and 6.Bg5.[12]
Black’s main alternative is 5...d6 which usually leads
to complications and approximately equal chances after
6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Bb5 c6 10.f4, or
7.Ng5 Ne5 8.Bb3 h6 9.f4. 5...Bc5 is also playable, trans-
posing to the Scotch Gambit after 6.Bc4 but cutting out
the Bxf7+ possibility. 5...Nf6 6.Bc4 can transpose back
to 5...d6 lines after 6...d6, or Black can attempt to trans-
pose to 5...Bb4 lines with 6...Bb4 but this allows 7.e5 d5
8.exf6 dxc4 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.fxg7 Rg8 11.Bh6.
Double-pawn gambit: 4...dxc3 5.Bc4 Alternatively
White can transpose into the Danish by offering a sec-
ond pawn with 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2, an approach which
John Emms considers far more dangerous for Black. If
Black does not accept the second pawn with 5...cxb2,
then White can avoid Black’s most critical response to
5.Nxc3 (5...Bb4 6.Bc4 d6). For instance, after 5...d6,
White’s best is 6.Nxc3, transposing back to the 5.Nxc3
d6 line. 5...Nf6 6.Nxc3 transposes to the 5.Nxc3 Nf6
line, 5...Bb4 is well met by 6.0-0 or 6.bxc3 (transposing to
the Scotch Gambit), 5...Bc5 also transposes to the Scotch
Gambit while 5...Be7?! (which is well met by 6.Qd5)
transposes to the Hungarian Defense.
Thus Black’s most critical response is to take the second
pawn with 5...cxb2 6.Bxb2. Unlike in the Danish proper,
having committed the queen’s knight to c6 Black can-
not safely meet 6.Bxb2 with 6...d5.[13] Instead, play of-
ten continues 6...d6 7.0-0 Be6 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qb3 Qd7
or 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Bc3 Nh6. 6...Bb4+ is the main alter-
native for Black, whereupon an approach with queenside
castling is considered dangerous for Black, e.g. 7.Nc3
Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.0-0-0.
3.14.3 See also
• List of chess openings
1976, pp. 117-18.
TV” - Episode 336
42 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

[3] Staunton-NN, Match 1843. ChessGames.com. Retrieved 3.15 Ponziani Opening

on 2011-04-15.

[4] Meek-Morphy, New York 1857. ChessGames.com. Re- The Ponziani Opening is a chess opening that begins
trieved on 2011-04-15. with the moves:
[5] Marshall-Capablanca, Lake Hopatcong 1926.
ChessGames.com. Retrieved on 2010-09-09. 1. e4 e5

[6] Gambits. Chesscafe.com. Retrieved on 2010-09-10.

2. Nf3 Nc6
3. c3
[7] Davies vs. Danish Dynamite. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved
on 2010-09-10.
It is one of the oldest chess openings, having been dis-
[8] State of Play. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved on 2010-09-10. cussed in the literature by 1497. It was advocated
[9] Ponziani Opening: Other Critical Lines. ChessCafe.com. by Howard Staunton, generally considered the world’s
Retrieved on 2010-09-10. strongest player from 1843 to 1851, in his 1847 book The
Chess-Player’s Handbook. For some decades, it was of-
[10] John Watson review of Danish Dynamite. The World In ten called “Staunton’s Opening” or the “English Knight’s
Chess. Retrieved on 2010-09-10.
Game” as a result. Today, it is usually known by the name
[11] Mark Morss: The Importance of the Open Game; the Go- of Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani, whose main contribu-
ering Gambit. The Campbell Report. Retrieved on 2010- tion to the opening was his introduction, in 1769, of the
09-10. countergambit 3...f5!?
[12] Steinitz for the Defense. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved on The opening is now considered inferior to 3.Bb5, the
2010-09-10. Ruy Lopez, and 3.Bc4, the Italian Game, and is accord-
ingly rarely seen today at any level of play. Black’s main
[13] Danish Pastry. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved on 2010-09-
10.
responses are 3...Nf6, leading to quiet play, and 3...d5,
leading to sharp play. Ponziani’s countergambit 3...f5!?
was successfully played in the grandmaster game Hikaru
Bibliography
Nakamura vs Julio Becerra Rivero, US Championship
2007.[1]
• Lane, Gary (1993). Winning with the Scotch. Henry
Holt & Co. ISBN 0-8050-2940-0.
• Lane, Gary. (2005). The Scotch Game Explained, 3.15.1 History
Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-8940-5.
The opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 is one of the old-
est known openings, having been discussed in chess lit-
3.14.5 Further reading erature by no later than 1497. It was mentioned in both
of the earliest chess treatises: the Repetición de Amores
• Alburt, Lev (2007). Chess Openings for White, Ex- y Arte de Ajedrez con ci Iuegos de Partido by Lucena[2]
plained. Chess Information and Research Center. and the Göttingen manuscript.[3] Today the opening bears
ISBN 978-1889323206. the surname of Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani. Although
Ponziani did analyze the opening in 1769, his principal
• Wells, Peter (1998). The Scotch Game. Sterling. contribution was the introduction of the countergambit
ISBN 978-0713484663. 3...f5!?[4] Later the opening was favored by Howard
• Gutman, Lev (2001). 4... Qh4 in the Scotch Game. Staunton, who in The Chess-Player’s Handbook (1847)
Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-8607-4. called it “so full of interest and variety, that its omission
in many of the leading works on the game is truly unac-
• Barsky, Vladimir (2009). The Scotch Game for countable. ... it deserves, and, if we mistake not, will yet
White. Chess Stars. ISBN 978-954-8782-73-9. attain a higher place in the category of legitimate open-
ings than has hitherto been assigned to it”.[4]
• Botterill, G. S.; Harding, Tim (1977). The Scotch.
B.T. Batsford Ltd.
Nomenclature
3.14.6 External links Staunton cumbersomely referred to the opening as “The
• The Games of the Match of Chess Played Between Queen’s Bishop’s
[4]
Pawn Game in the King’s Knight’s
The London and The Edinburgh Chess Clubs In Opening”, as did George H. D. Gossip in The Chess
1824, 1825, 1826, 1827 and 1828 Player’s Manual (1888, American edition 1902).[5]
Napoleon Marache, one of the leading American play-
• History of the Scotch at the Edinburgh Chess Club ers, similarly called it the “Queen’s Bishop’s Pawn Game”
3.15. PONZIANI OPENING
in his 1866 manual.[6] In their treatise Chess Open-
ings Ancient and Modern (1889, 1896), E. Freebor-
ough and the Reverend C.E. Ranken called it “Staunton’s
Opening”.[7][8] In an appendix to later editions of
Staunton’s work, R.F. Green, editor of the British Chess
Magazine, also called it “Staunton’s Opening”, directing
those seeking a definition of “Ponziani’s Game” to the
former name.[9] Green referred to 3...f5 as “Ponziani’s
Counter Gambit”.[10] Chess historian H. J. R. Murray
in his celebrated 1913 work A History of Chess called
the opening simply the “Staunton”,[11] explaining that
he was using “the ordinary names of the Openings as
used by English players of the present day”.[12] James
Mason in his treatise The Art of Chess (Fourth Edition
c. 1910?) referred to the opening as the “Ponziani–
Staunton Attack”.[13] The famous German Handbuch des
Schachspiels, which went through eight editions between
1843 and 1916, called it the “Englisches Springerspiel”
(English Knight’s Game).[14] The Reverend E.E. Cun-
nington in The Modern Chess Primer (Thirteenth Edition
1933) referred to it as the “Ponziani Opening (sometimes
called Staunton’s)".[15]
Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, in his 1895
treatise The Modern Chess Instructor (Part II), called the
opening the “Ponziani Opening”,[16] as did his successor,
Emanuel Lasker, in Lasker’s Manual of Chess.[17] Simi-
larly, Frank Marshall in Chess Openings,[18] the authors
of Modern Chess Openings (Second Edition 1913),[19] 3.15.3 Variations
and Siegbert Tarrasch in The Game of Chess (1931,
English translation 1938)[20] called it “Ponziani’s Open- After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 the main continuations are:
ing”. William Cook in The Chess Players’ Compendium
(Fifth Edition 1910) called it “Ponziani’s Game”,[21]
while Francis Joseph Lee and Gossip in The Com-
plete Chess – Guide (1903) called it “Ponziani’s Knight’s
Game”.[22] Contemporary authors likewise call it the
“Ponziani Opening”,[23][24] “Ponziani’s Opening”,[25] or
simply the “Ponziani”.[26]
3.15.2 Introduction and overview
Ponziani
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
The Ponziani is rarely played today except as a surprise
weapon, because Black has the pleasant choice between
equalizing easily and attempting to obtain an advantage
with sharper play.[27] White’s third move prepares to
build a powerful pawn center with 4.d4, a logical objec-
tive also seen in the more popular Ruy Lopez and Giuoco
Piano. However, 3.c3 is somewhat premature because
the move: (1) takes away the most natural square for
White’s queen knight,[28] (2) temporarily creates a hole
on d3, and (3) develops a pawn rather than a piece leav-
ing White behind in development[29] and not well placed
to meet a counterattack in the center. Moreover, unlike
in the Giuoco Piano, where White’s d4 advance attacks
Black’s king’s bishop on c5, in the Ponziani d4 will not
43
gain a tempo. On the positive side, the move 3.c3 creates
a second diagonal for the white queen.[29]
As early as 1904, Marshall wrote that, “There is no point
in White’s third move unless Black plays badly. ... White
practically surrenders the privilege of the first move.”[30]
More recently, Graham Burgess called the Ponziani “a
relic from a bygone age, popular neither at top level nor
at club level”.[31] Bruce Pandolfini has said,
Curiously, every great teacher of openings
who investigated the Ponziani has concluded
that it leads to interesting play and deserves to
be played more often. Yet it has never cap-
tured the fancy of chessplayers in general, and
it remains to be seen whether the Ponziani is an
opening of the past or of the future.[32]
In Chess Master Vs. Chess Amateur, Max Euwe and Wal-
ter Meiden wrote,
What should one do with this opening? It
is no opening for beginners, because tactics
predominate in the play. There are no simple
strategic principles to govern the general lines
in this opening.[29]
• 3...Nf6, the Jaenisch Variation is considered
Black’s safest course and probably a deterrent
to possible Ponziani adopters because positions
arise ranging from the highly chaotic to dull
passiveness.[33] White continues 4.d4, consistent
with 3.c3.[33]
• 4...Nxe4 often continues 5.d5 Ne7 (5...Nb8
is also playable; Black even may invest a
knight with 5...Bc5 6.dxc6 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 Bb6
8.Qd5 Nf2 9.Rg1 O-O 10.cxb7 Bxb7 11.Qxb7
Qf6 12.Na3 e4 13.Nc4 Rab8 14.Qd5 exf3+
15.gxf3 Rfe8+ 16.Kd2 Ne4+ 17.fxe4 Bxg1=
[34]
) 6.Nxe5 Ng6, (not 6...d6?? when 7.Bb5+!
wins material)[35] and now either 7.Qd4 Qf6
8.Qxe4 Qxe5, a relatively new try 7.Qf3[nb 1]
or 7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Qe2 Qe7 9.Bf4 d6 10.Na3
Rh5 11.0-0-0 Rf5 leads to equality according
to MCO-15.[37]
• 4...exd4, Black can also play this move lead-
ing to a position that can arise in the Göring
Gambit,[33] meeting 5.e5 with either 5...Nd5
or 5...Ne4, leading to more double-edged play
than after 4...Nxe4.
• 3...d5, is an aggressive response, striking back in the
center. Usually in Kings Pawn openings an early
44 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

...d5 by Black would lose a tempo after exd5 Qxd5 3.15.4 Illustrative games
when White plays Nc3 attacking the black queen.[29]
Here however, White is deprived of the move Nc3 Here is a quiet draw typical of the 3...Nf6 line:
as the c3-square is occupied by a pawn.[29]
V. Medvedev (2365) versus Charles Milgram
• 4.Bb5 is considered inferior to 4.Qa4[23] but
(2375), ICCF 1991[42]
the game becomes sharp with chances for both
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4
sides, although Black may emerge with advan-
5. d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Qd4 Qf6 8. Qxe4
tage after 4...dxe4! 5.Nxe5 Qg5! 6. Qa4
[38] Qxe5 9. Qxe5+ Nxe5 10. Nd2 d6 11. Nc4
Qxg2 7. Rf1 Bh3.
Nxc4 12. Bxc4 Be7 13. 0-0 0-0 14. Re1 Bf6
• 4.Qa4, White indirectly threatens the e5-pawn 15. Be3 Bd7 ½–½
by pinning the knight.[2] Black has to choose
either to defend the e5-pawn with 4...f6, or
While this game was agreed drawn there are good win-
4...Qd6, or be prepared to sacrifice a pawn
ning chances for White in this type of endgame.[43]
with either 4...Bd7, or 4...Nf6.
• 4...Bd7, the Caro Variation, an uncon- The variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nge7 has been at-
vincing variation according to Euwe[29] tributed to Reti due to him having tried it against Tar-
after 5.exd5 Nd4 6.Qd1 Nxf3 7.Qxf3 takower and lost. Recent analysis gives White the edge,
Black has gambited a pawn with an un- i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nge7 4.Bc4 (immediately
clear position.[23] targeting f7) d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 and now either 6.0-0 or
6.Qb3 lead to a White advantage.[44] Also playable for
• 4...Qd6, protecting e5 without weak-
White is 4. Bb5 which transposes to a line of the Cozio
ening the pawn structure.[38] Batsford
Defense to the Ruy Lopez.[45]
Chess Openings 2 gives the move an
exclamation mark[26] but does not men- Chigorin vs. Gossip, 1889
tion the reply 5.d4, the main move in the Position after 12...Ke7?
later Nunn’s Chess Openings.[23]
• 4...Nf6, the Leonhardt Variation. Here are two games illustrating the wild tactical play that
White can now gain material with often develops in the 3...d5 4.Qa4 f6 5.Bb5 Ne7 line:
5.Nxe5, with theory giving 5...Bd6
6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.d3 0-0 8.Be2 Re8 • Mikhail Chigorin versus George H.D. Gossip, New
with a position in which Black has York 1889:[46]
compensation for the pawn.[23] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 3...Nf6 is the safest
• 4...f6, the Steinitz Variation, protecting response if Black is not well versed in the ensuing
the central e5-pawn is considered solid complications—as Gossip proves not to be.[47] 4.
and best but unnatural because it deprives Qa4 f6 5. Bb5 Ne7 6. exd5 Qxd5 7. 0-0 7.d4! is
the black knight of f6.[29] The line can the main line today.[48] 7... Bd7? 7...e4! 8.Ne1 Bf5
continue 5.Bb5 Nge7 6.exd5 Qxd5 with 9.f3 leads to equality.[49] 8. d4 e4 9. Nfd2 Ng6?
either 7.d4 Bd7 or 7.0-0 Bd7 and an equal 9...f5! or 9...0-0-0 was better.[49] 10. Bc4 Qa5 11.
[23]
position. Qb3 f5? 11...0-0-0! was the best chance.[49] 12.
• 3...f5, the Ponziani Countergambit is an aggres- Bf7+ Ke7? 12...Kd8 is forced.[49] 13. Nc4! Setting
sive Black response originally suggested by the 18th- up a problem-like finish.[50] 13... Qa6 14. Bg5+!
century Italian writer, Ponziani.[33] In 1951, Boris Kxf7 15. Nd6# 1–0 Black’s king cannot escape the
Spassky chose this countergambit against Yakov double check.
Estrin.[39] The countergambit is considered better • S. Kaouras versus R. Vorlop, e-mail 2003:
for White after 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Qf6 6.Ng4 Qg6 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 e5 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 f6 5.
7.Bf4[26] or 5...Nf6 6.Bg5.[23] Bb5 Nge7 6. exd5 Qxd5 7. d4 7.0–0 is consid-
• 3...Nge7, the unusual Kmoch Variation was advo- ered the main line, e.g. 7...Bd7 8.d4 a6!? (8...exd4
cated by Hans Kmoch. According to Reuben Fine, 9.cxd4 Ne5 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 is equal) 9.c4 Qf7
citing analysis by Kmoch, Black equalizes after 4.d4 10.d5 Nb8 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Nc3 Nf5 13.b4 gave
exd4 5.Bc4 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 White the advantage in S. Hassan–B. Amin, Cairo
9.cxd4 Be6.[40] 2003. 7... e4 Alternatives are the old move, 7...Bd7,
and 7...Bg4, which is currently popular at the inter-
• 3...d6, reinforces the e5=pawn and hopes to show national level. 8. c4 Qd7 9. Nfd2 Qxd4 10. 0–0
that c3 was unnecessary. However, it is considered Bd7 11. Nc3 a6 12. Nb3 Qe5 13. c5 f5 14. g3
passive and does not present white with any prob- Ng6 15. Rd1 Be7 16. Bc4 Nd4 Now White ap-
lems. After 4. Bc4, black’s most common responses pears to be in deep trouble. 17. Qxd7+! The best
are 4...g6, 4...Be6, and 4...Bg4.[41] practical choice, which inspires White to play very
3.15. PONZIANI OPENING
aggressively. 17... Kxd7 18. Be3 Nh4 If 18...Kc8,
19.Bxd4 traps Black’s queen. 19. gxh4 Kc8 20.
Bxd4 White has three pieces for the queen and the
initiative; Black’s pieces are uncoordinated. 20...
Qf4 21. Be6+ Kb8 22. Ne2 Qf3 23. Ng3 Bxh4
24. Be3 g6 24...f4? 25.Nd2 traps the queen. 25.
Rd7 Bf6 26. c6 b5 27. Rd5 Re8 28. Nc5 Bg7 29.
Rad1! White creates a mating net by threatening
Rd8+. 29... Ka7 30. Rd7 Be5 31. Bxf5 gxf5 32.
Nb7+ Qxe3 33. fxe3 Having regained the queen,
White has a winning material advantage. 33... f4
34. exf4 Bxf4 35. Nd6 Bxd6 36. R1xd6 Kb6 37.
Rd1 Re6 38. Re1 e3 39. Rxh7 Rae8 40. Rg7
Kxc6 41. Re2 Re5 42. Nf1 Kd5 43. Kg2 c5 44.
Rg3 Kd4 45. h4 c4 46. Rexe3 Rxe3 47. Nxe3
Kd3 48. Kh3 Kd2 49. Nd5 Kc1 50. Rg2 Re5 51.
Nf4 b4 52. h5 Kb1 53. h6 Re8 54. Kg4 Rh8 55.
Kg5 c3 56. bxc3 bxc3 57. Rh2 c2 58. Nd3 1–0
Notes based on those by International Master Gary
Lane.[2]
3.15.5 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
3.15.6 Notes
[1] 7.Qf3. In M Schäfer vs S. Van Gisbergen Münster
1993 the game continued 7...Qe7 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Be3
Rh5!? (a creative move adding pressure to the d5-pawn)
10. Bd3 Nf6 11. c4 Qe5 12. Qe2 Bb4+ 13.Nd2 d6
14.0-0-0 Bxd2+ 15.Qxd2 Kf8 16.Rde1 (White’s pres-
sure on the e-file makes his advantage obvious.) Ng4
17.f4 Qf6 18.Bg1 g5 19.Rf1 gxf4 20.Rxf4 Qh6 21.Be2
Ne5 22.Bxh5 Qxf4 (a cute reduction combination, but
unfortunately for Black, he is still left with a difficult
endgame) 23. Qxf4 Nd3+ 24.Kd2 Nxf4 25.Bf3 Bf5
26.Bd4 f6 27.Rf1 Bg6 28.h4 b6 29.g3 Nd3 30.h5 Bh7
31.h6! Ne5 32.Be2 Re8 33.a4 c5 34.dxc6 Nxc6 35.Bxf6+
Kg8 38.Bc3 (better is 35. c5!) and White won in 52
moves.[36]
3.15.7 References
[1] Hikaru Nakamura vs. Julio J Becerra-Rivero, US Cham-
pionship 2007ChessGames.com
[2] Lane, Gary. “Beauty and the Beast” (PDF).
ChessGames.com. Retrieved 2008-08-08.
[3] Brace, Edward R. (1977). An Illustrated Dictionary of
Chess. Hamlyn Publishing Group. p. 225. ISBN 1-
55521-394-4.
[4] Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook, Henry
G. Bohn, 1847, p. 182.
45
[5] G. H. D. Gossip and S. Lipschütz, The Chess Player’s
Manual, David McKay, 1902, p. 237.
[6] N. Marache, Marache’s Manual of Chess, Dick & Fitzger-
ald, 1866, p. 78.
[7] E. Freeborough and C.E. Ranken, Chess Openings Ancient
and Modern, First Edition, Trübner and Co., 1889, p. 43.
[8] E. Freeborough and C.E. Ranken, Chess Openings Ancient
and Modern, Third Edition, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner
and Co., 1896, p. 45.
[9] Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook, George
Bell & Sons, 1890, pp. 534, 537. In his own treatise
Chess, Green only used the term “Staunton’s Opening”.
R.F. Green, Chess, George Bell & Sons, 1908 (reprint of
1889 1st ed.), p. 56.
[10] Staunton 1890, p. 534.
[11] H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess, Oxford University
Press, 1913, p. 784. ISBN 0-19-827403-3.
[12] Murray, p. 784 n. 10.
[13] James Mason, The Art of Chess, Fourth Edition, David
McKay, c. 1910?, p. 359.
[14] Paul Rudolf von Bilguer, Tassilo von Heydebrand und der
Lasa, and Carl Schlechter, Handbuch des Schachspiels,
Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1916, p. 581.
[15] Rev. E.E. Cunnington, The Modern Chess Primer, David
McKay, 13th ed. 1933, p. 181.
[16] Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor, Edition
Olms AG, Zürich, 1990 (reprint), Part II (originally pub-
lished in 1895), p. 1. ISBN 3-283-00111-1. Steinitz
wrote that it “is also called the English Knight’s Game,
or Staunton’s Opening”. Id.
[17] Dr. Emanuel Lasker, Lasker’s Manual of Chess, Dover
Publications, 1960, p. 53.
[18] F. J. Marshall, Chess Openings, British Chess Magazine,
1904, p. 47.
[19] R.C. Griffith and J.H. White, Modern Chess Openings,
Second Edition, Longmans, Green and Co., 1913, p. 81.
[20] Siegbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess, David McKay,
1938, p. 299.
[21] William Cook, The Chess Players’ Compendium, David
McKay, 1910, p. 87.
[22] F. J. Lee and G. H. D. Gossip, The Complete Chess –
Guide, John Grant, Edinburgh, 1903, p. 55.
[23] John Nunn; Graham Burgess; John Emms; Joe Gallagher
(1999). Nunn’s Chess Openings. London: Everyman Pub-
lishers. p. 306. ISBN 1857442210.
[24] Larry Kaufman, The Chess Advantage in Black and White,
David McKay, 2004, p. 342. ISBN 0-8129-3571-3.
[25] Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings, 15th Edition
(commonly referred to as MCO-15), McKay Chess Li-
brary, 2008, p. 135. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7.
46
[26] Garry Kasparov; Raymond Keene (1989). Batsford Chess
Openings 2. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd. p. 367. ISBN
0713460997.
[27] Emms 2000, p. 81.
[28] Tarrasch, p. 299.
[29] Max Euwe, Walter Meiden (1963). Chess Master Vs.
Chess Amateur (1994 ed.). Courier Dover Publications.
pp. 41–43. ISBN 0486279472.
[30] Marshall, p. 47. At the time, this was a minority view.
Lasker’s Chess Magazine responded, “In trying to set aside
all teachings of former masters, Mr. Marshall has at-
tempted the impossible.” Andy Soltis, Frank Marshall,
United States Chess Champion: A Biography with 220
Games, McFarland & Company, 1994, p. 70. ISBN 0-
89950-887-1.
[31] Graham Burgess, The Mammoth Book of Chess, Carroll &
Graf, 1997, p. 133. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
[32] Bruce Pandolfini, Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps, Fire-
side, 1989, p. 90. ISBN 0-671-65690-2.
[33] Tim Harding (September 2010). “Ponziani Open-
ing: Other Critical Lines” (PDF). The Kibitzer.
ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 2012-10-04.
[34] Jeroen Bosch, A Dangerous Piece Sacrifice, New In Chess
Yearbook 112 (2014), p. 121, ISBN 978-90-5691-510-0
[35] Taylor 2010, p. 12.
[36] Taylor 2010, p. 15.
[37] MCO-15, p. 136.
[38] Tim Harding (August 2010). “Can the Ponzi Fly Again?"
(PDF). The Kibitzer. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 2012-
10-04.
[39] “Yakov Estrin vs Boris Spassky, Riga 1951 ·
Ponziani Opening: Ponziani Countergambit (C44)".
ChessGames.com. Retrieved 2012-10-05.
[40] Reuben Fine, Practical Chess Openings, David McKay,
1948, p. 141.
[41] Taylor 2010, p. 250.
[42] “Valery Vladimirovich Medvedev vs Charles Milgram,
1991 · Ponziani Opening: Jaenisch Counterattack (C44)".
ChessGames.com. Retrieved 2012-10-04.
[43] Taylor 2010, p. 13.
[44] Taylor 2010, p. 276.
[45] Taylor 2010, p. 274.
[46] “Mikhail Chigorin vs George Hatfeild Gossip, New York
1889 · Ponziani Opening: Steinitz Variation (C44)".
ChessGames.com. Retrieved 2012-10-04.
[47] Kaufman, p. 343.
[48] de Firmian, p. 136.
CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS
[49] Efim Bogolyubov, Mikhail Chigorin: Selected Games,
Caissa Books (Publishing) Ltd, 1987, p. 39. ISBN 0-
7134-5719-8.
[50] Irving Chernev, 1000 Best Short Games of Chess, Fireside;
Rei Sub edition, 1955, p. 139. ISBN 978-0-671-53801-
9.
3.15.8 Further reading
• Emms, John (2000). Play the Open Games as Black.
Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-85744-620-8.
• Taylor, Dave; Hayward, Keith (2010). Play the
Ponziani. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-620-8.
3.16 Inverted Hungarian Opening
Inverted Hungarian Opening
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2
The Inverted Hungarian Opening or Tayler Opening
is an uncommon chess opening that starts with the moves:
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Be2
It is so named because the position of White’s bishop
on e2 resembles that of Black’s bishop on e7 in the
Hungarian Defense.
3.16.1 Description
The Inverted Hungarian is even rarer than the already
very uncommon Hungarian Defense, although it is per-
fectly playable for White. It may appeal to White players
who wish to avoid extensively analyzed double king pawn
openings such as the Ruy Lopez, and to those who favor
defensive positional maneuvering battles as also often re-
sult from the Hungarian Defense. With the advantage of
the first move, White has greater latitude to play moves
that are not objectively the strongest without incurring
disadvantage.
Since White’s third move 3.Be2 makes no threats, there
are many satisfactory replies for Black. If White plays
a setup resembling the Black side of the Hanham Vari-
ation of the Philidor Defense (3...Nf6 4.d3 d5 5.Nbd2),
the opening is sometimes called the Inverted Hanham
Opening.
3.16.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
3.18. THREE KNIGHTS OPENING 47

3.16.3 References In the Three Knights Game, Black chooses to break sym-
metry in order to avoid the main lines of what is of-
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox- ten considered the drawish Four Knights Game after the
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN usual 3...Nf6.
0-19-280049-3.
The relevant ECO code is C46.

3.17 Konstantinopolsky Opening

3.18.1 Black’s third move
The Konstantinopolsky Opening is a rarely played
chess opening that begins with the moves: After tries such as 3...d6 or 3...Be7, White can play
4.d4, leaving Black with a cramped position resembling
Philidor’s Defense. If Black plays 3...Bc5 instead, White
1. e4 e5 can eliminate Black’s outpost at e5: 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4
2. Nf3 Nc6 Bd6 6.dxe5 Bxe5. Since tournament praxis shows the
3. g3 line seems to favor White, Black usually plays 3...Bb4
or 3...g6. Continuations then are typically 3...Bb4 4.Nd5
and 3...g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5.
3.17.1 Description Another alternative for Black is 3...f5!? – the Winawer
Defense (or Gothic Defense). Then 4.Bb5 transposes
The opening was introduced in the game Alexander into the Schliemann variation of the Ruy Lopez with
Konstantinopolsky versus Viacheslav Ragozin, Moscow, 4.Nc3.
1956.
The Three Knights is almost never seen at master level
The Konstantinopolsky Opening is rarely seen at the nowadays, as Black players have sought more active tries,
top levels of chess, although some grandmasters such as even within the Four Knights.
Savielly Tartakower (who played many unusual openings)
have experimented with it. Black is considered to achieve
an easy game with the natural and strong 3...Nf6 4.d3 d5.
3.18.2 Reversed knight position
3.17.2 See also The similar position with Black having moved ...Nf6 is
called Petrov’s Three Knights Game, although it too usu-
• List of chess openings ally leads to the Four Knights Game.
• List of chess openings named after people

3.18.3 Example game

3.17.3 References
Rosenthal vs Steinitz, 1873:
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4
Bg7 6.Be3 Nge7 7.Bc4 d6 8.0-0 0-0 9.f4 Na5
3.17.4 External links 10.Bd3 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.c3
Rd8 14.Qc2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.Qf2 c5
• King’s pawn game • Konstantinopolsky opening
17.Nf3 b6 18.Ne5 Qe6 19.Qf3 Ba6 20.Rfe1
ecochess.com
f6 21.Ng4 h5 22.Nf2 Qf7 23.f5 g5 24.Rad1
Bb7 25.Qg3 Rd5 26.Rxd5 Qxd5 27.Rd1 Qxf5
28.Qc7 Bd5 29.b3 Re8 30.c4 Bf7 31.Bc1
3.18 Three Knights Opening Re2 32.Rf1 Qc2 33.Qg3 Qxa2 34.Qb8+ Kh7
35.Qg3 Bg6 36.h4 g4 37.Nd3 Qxb3 38.Qc7
The Three Knights Game is a chess opening which most Qxd3 0–1
commonly begins with the moves:

1. e4 e5 3.18.4 See also

2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 • Open Game
48 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.18.5 References 7.exf6 Qxf6 (7...cxd2+? 8.Bxd2 Qxf6 9.0-0 is dangerous

for Black) 8.dxc3 Qe5+. This often leads to a quick draw
• Raymond Keene, Garry Kasparov (1994) [1989]. after 9.Qe2 Qxe2+.
Batsford Chess Openings (2nd ed.). B.T. Batsford
In recent years, Black has tried 4...Bd6!? with varying
Ltd. ISBN 0-8050-3409-9.
results. That move takes the sting out of 5.Bxc6, which
is met with 5...dxc6 with a good game. If White plays
quietly, Black will regroup with ...0-0, ...Re8, ...Bf8, and
3.19 Four Knights Game ...d6.

The Four Knights Game is a chess opening that begins

with the moves: 4.d4

1. e4 e5 If White plays 4.d4, the Scotch Four Knights Game

2. Nf3 Nc6 arises. This leads to a more open position, which can also
be reached from the Scotch Game, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
3. Nc3 Nf6
Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3. This variation was
This is the most common sequence, but the knights may played in the fifth game of the 1996 Deep Blue versus
develop in any order to reach the same position. Garry Kasparov match.

The opening is fairly popular with beginners who strictly
adhere to the opening principle: “Develop knights before
bishops.” It was one of the workhorses in the family of the
Open Game, at even the highest levels, until World War
I. Thereafter it fell by the wayside, along with a number
of open games. In this period ambitious players explored
the Ruy Lopez, believing it a better attempt for White to
exploit the advantage of the first move. In the 1990s, this
opening saw a renaissance, and is now seen in the praxis
of players from beginner to grandmaster.
The Four Knights usually leads to quiet positional play,
though there are some sharp variations. The ECO codes
for the Four Knights Game are C49 (Symmetrical Vari-
ation, 4.Bb5 Bb4), C48 (4.Bb5 without 4...Bb4), C47
(4.d4 and others).
3.19.1 Variations
4.Bb5
Spanish Variation
White’s most common move is 4.Bb5, the Spanish Vari-
ation. This variation can also be reached from the Ruy
Lopez, Berlin Defence. After 4.Bb5, Black has three ma-
jor alternatives.
The first of these is 4...Bb4, the Symmetrical Variation.
Black can play more aggressively by 4...Nd4, the
Rubinstein Variation. White cannot win a pawn with
5.Nxe5, since Black regains the pawn with the advan-
tage of the bishop pair after 5...Qe7 6.Nf3 (6.f4 Nxb5
7.Nxb5 d6) Nxb5 7.Nxb5 Qxe4+ 8.Qe2 Qxe2+ 9.Kxe2
Nd5! 10.c4 a6! White most often plays 5.Ba4, when
Black usually continues in gambit fashion with 5...Bc5!?
6.Nxe5 0-0 7.Nd3 Bb6 8.e5 Ne8 followed by ...d6. An-
other line, which discourages many ambitious Black play-
ers from playing the Rubinstein, is 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.e5 dxc3
One reason White may choose the Four Knights (3.Nc3)
move order over the Scotch (3.d4), besides fearing that
after 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Black may choose 4...Bc5 or
4...Qh4, is that White may want to play the Belgrade
Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4
5.Nd5!?). It is not possible to reach the Belgrade from
the Scotch. However, the Belgrade is a distant second in
popularity to 5.Nxd4.
4.Bc4
A further possibility is 4.Bc4, the Italian Four Knights
Game, or Prussian Four Knights Game, popular in the
1880s, though this line is regarded as inferior according to
Pinski, and an outright mistake by IM Larry D. Evans.[1]
Black can preserve the symmetry by 4...Bc5, leading to
the quiet Giuoco Pianissimo. A better move order for
White that leads to this position is via the Giuoco Piano
by 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 Nf6. The line
is a favorite among younger players due to its simple and
easy development, but has also been used successfully by
Nigel Short against Antoaneta Stefanova.[2]
The problem with playing for this position via the Four
Knights Game is that after 4.Bc4, the pseudo-sacrifice
of a knight with 4...Nxe4!, the center fork trick. Then
5.Bxf7+?, though superficially attractive, relinquishes the
bishop pair and central control to Black. After 5...Kxf7
6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8, Black is already threaten-
ing 8...e4, and after 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4, Black has a
very powerful position, with an unopposed light-squared
bishop, a strong duo of pawns in the centre, and a safe
king, while White needs to work out how to get the dis-
placed knight on h3 into play; often it will need to be
played back to g1.
Rather than 5.Bxf7+?, a better chance for White to play
for equality is 5.Nxe4, even though 5...d5 regains the
piece with a good game, e.g., 6.Bd3 (6.Bxd5? Qxd5
7.Nc3 Qd8 Estrin; 6.Bb5?! dxe4 7.Nxe5 Qg5! Collijn's
3.19. FOUR KNIGHTS GAME
Lärobok; 6.d4 dxc4 7.d5 Ne7 8.Nc3 c6 Cordel–Schupli,
1905) 6...dxe4 (the recently discovered 6...Nb4 is also
playable) 7.Bxe4 Bd6 8.d4 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 exd4 10.Qxd4
0-0 11.Be3 (11.0-0?? Bxh2+ wins) Qe7 (Tartakower– 3.19.3 References
Atkins, London 1922[3] ) and now the natural 12.0-0 Be5
would be awkward for White.[4] In the above line, more [1] The Fork Trick, published in Chess Life April 2000 and
ambitious is 8...exd4 9.Nxd4 0-0!?, as in a match game
between Siegbert Tarrasch and Emanuel Lasker in 1916,
which led to a Black win in 23 moves.[5] [2] Checkpoint no. 55, Carsten Hansen, ChessCafe.com,
Another try is 5.0-0!? transposing to a variation of the
Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit.
4.g3
Igor Glek has favored 4.g3, preparing development of
the bishop to g2. According to Pinski, Black’s main re-
sponses are 4...Bc5 and 4...d5, both of which are reck-
oned to equalize for Black. A Halloween Gambit style
4...Nxe4 has also been tried at the grandmaster level as
in two games between Ilya Smirin and Bartłomiej Ma-
cieja.[6]
4.Be2
Though rarely seen, this move is playable. For example,
if Black plays 4...Bb4, White has the responses 5.Nd5,
5.0-0, and 5.d3, which retain equality with accurate play.
4.a3
The quiet waiting move 4.a3 (called the Gunsberg Varia-
tion) is a specialty of Polish Grandmaster Paweł Blehm.
4.Nxe5
A dubious gambit is 4.Nxe5?!, the so-called Halloween
Gambit. After 4...Nxe5 5.d4, White tries to seize the
center with his pawns and drive the black knights back
to their home squares. Grandmaster Larry Kaufman says
that this line is refuted by 5...Nc6 6.d5 Bb4! 7.dxc6 Nxe4
8.Qd4 Qe7, which he attributes to Jan Pinski.[7] Accord-
ing to Max Euwe's opening series volume 11, Black has
a decisive advantage after 5...Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d5
8.Bxd5 c6.[8]
3.19.2 See also
• Open Game
• Three Knights Game
• Two Knights Defense
• Giuoco Piano
• Ruy Lopez
49
• Scotch game
May 2000 Facsimile online (chesscamp.net)
2003, see review of The Four Knights.
[3]
[4] Dr. S. Tartakower and J. du Mont, 500 Master Games
of Chess, Dover Publications, 1975, p. 53. ISBN 0-486-
23208-5.
[5] This game is analyzed by Jan Pinski in The Four Knights,
and can be played through here.
[6] “Ilya Smirin vs Bartlomiej Macieja, CZE-chT 0304
2003”. ChessGames.com. Retrieved 16 March 2010. and
“Ilya Smirin vs Bartlomiej Macieja TCh-CZE Extraliga
2003-4 2004”. ChessGames.com. Retrieved 16 March
2010.
[7] Kaufman, Larry (2004). The Chess Advantage in Black
and White. McKay Chess Library. p. 328. ISBN 0-8129-
3571-3.
[8] A Breeze in the sleepy Four Knight’s Game
Bibliography
• Raymond Keene, Garry Kasparov (1994) [1989].
Batsford Chess Openings (2nd ed.). B.T. Batsford
Ltd. ISBN 0-8050-3409-9.
• Jan Pinski (2003). The Four Knights. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 1-85744-311-X.
• Harding, T. D.; Botterill, G. S. (1977). “Two
Knights: Other Lines”. The Italian Game. B. T.
Batsford Limited. pp. 119–27. ISBN 0-7134-
3261-6.
3.19.4 Further reading
• Obodchuk, Andrey (2011). The Four Knights Game.
New in Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-372-4.
3.19.5 External links
• Tim Krabbé's article on the Halloween Gambit
• Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #13, Critical
Lines in the Halloween Gambit by Paul Keiser
50
3.20 Halloween Gambit
The Halloween Gambit (also known as the Müller–
Schulze Gambit or Leipzig Gambit) is an aggressive
chess opening gambit in which White sacrifices a knight
early on for a single pawn. The opening is an offshoot of
the normally staid Four Knights Game and is defined by
the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nxe5
The theoretician Oskar Cordel reported in 1888 that
Leipzig club players used the opening to dangerous ef-
fect, but he did not believe it was sound. Their name for
it, Gambit Müller und Schulze, was not after any play-
ers by those names, but rather a jocular German equiva-
lent of "Smith and Jones", or, "Tom, Dick, and Harry".
The modern name “Halloween Gambit” was given by the
German player Steffen Jakob, who explained that “Many
players are shocked, the way they would be frightened
by a Halloween mask, when they are mentally prepared
for a boring Four Knight’s, and then they are faced with
Nxe5”.[1]
White’s objective is to seize the center with pawns and
drive back Black’s knights. After 4... Nxe5, White usu-
ally plays 5. d4 (5.f4 does nothing for his development),
after which Black can retreat the attacked knight to either
g6 or c6.
3.20.1 5...Ng6 retreat
Position after 5...Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4
When Black retreats 5...Ng6, White chases the f6-knight
with 6.e5. Then after 6...Ng8 7.Bc4, former world cham-
pion Max Euwe recommended 7...d5 8.Bxd5 c6, con-
tending in volume 11 of his opening series that Black has
a decisive advantage.[1]
Instead of holding on to the extra piece with the usual
6...Ng8, a more logical continuation according to Eric
Schiller is 6...Bb4, giving Black the better game after 3.20.4 Illustrative games
7.exf6 Qxf6 with a lead in development and pressure in
the center.[2] The following speed chess games show what can befall an
unprepared player of the black pieces:
3.20.2 5...Nc6 retreat
When Black retreats 5...Nc6, White chases the knight
again with 6.d5. Then Black has 6...Ne5 (the Main line),
or 6...Bb4 (Pinski’s move).
CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS
Main line 6...Ne5
After 5...Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6
After 6...Ne5, White chases again with 7.f4. Then after
7...Ng6 the game usually continues 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6, com-
pleting the most commonly seen sequence in the Gambit
(see diagram). In this position White is on the attack,
and his attack will generally persevere (with tactics such
as Nb5 after a pawn trade at d6).
Pinski’s 6...Bb4
After 5...Nc6 6.d5 Bb4
GM Larry Kaufman wrote in 2004 that the Müller–
Schulze Gambit is refuted by 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5
Bb4! 7.dxc6 Nxe4 8.Qd4 Qe7, which he attributes
to the Polish IM Jan Pinski.[3][4] In 2003 Pinski ana-
lyzed 9.Qxg7 Nxc3 10.Be3 Nd5+ 11.c3 Rf8 12.cxb4
Nxe3 13.fxe3 Qxb4+, concluding “Black is very close
to winning”.[5] After the alternative 9.Be3 0-0 10.Bd3
Nxc3 11.bxc3 Ba5 12.0-0 Bb6 13.Qf4 Bxe3 14.fxe3
dxc6, Black had a superior pawn structure in Gaillard–
Platel, France 2003 (0–1,30). Black can also play
9...f5. The game Sigfusson (2288)–Bellin (2381),
Reykjavik 2009, continued 10.cxd7+ Bxd7 11.Be2 Bc5
12.Bh5+ Kd8! 13.Qd3 (13.Qd5 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Nxc3
15.bxc3 Qh4+ 16.g3 Qxh5 17.Rd1 Qe8 18.Qxb7 Qxe3+
19.Kf1 Qe4−+) 13...Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Nxc3 15.Qxe7+
Kxe7 16.bxc3 Bc6 when Black had the better endgame
and won in 52 moves.[6]
3.20.3 Halloween Gambit with colors re-
versed
A similar gambit can be tried by Black: after 4.g3, Black
can play 4...Nxe4!? This line is arguably sounder than
its White counterpart because White’s 4.g3 has weak-
ened his f3-square. Moreover, White cannot play the line
recommended by Kaufman with colors reversed, because
5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nc3 d4 7.Bb5? dxc3 8.Nxe5? Qd5 9.Qe2?
loses to 9...Qxh1+. However, with the pawn on g3, Nh4
is possible and it should be easier to castle.[4]
• Brause–N.N., German Internet Chess Server 1997
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5
5. d4 Ng6 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 c6 8. Qf3 f6 9. 0-0
d5 10. exd6e.p. Bxd6 11. Ne4 N8e7? 12. Qxf6!!
gxf6? 13. Nxf6+ Kf8 14. Bh6# 1–0
3.21. PHILIDOR DEFENCE
• Brause–N.N., Internet Chess Club 1997
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5
5. d4 Nc6 6. d5 Nb8 7. e5 Ng8 8. d6 Nc6 9.
Nb5 cxd6 10. exd6 Bxd6? (10...Qf6) 11. Qxd6
Qe7+ 12. Be3 Qxd6 13. Nxd6+ Kf8 14. Bc4 Ne5
15. Bb3 Ne7 16. 0-0-0 f6 17. f4 Ng4 18. Rhe1
(threatening 19.Bc5 and 20.Nxc8 Rxc8 21.Rxd7) 1–
0 • “The Halloween Gambit is Scarier Than You Think”
The next game, played in a Halloween Gambit thematic
tournament, won the prize for the most spectacular game
won by White (annotations from chessville.com):
• Torrecillas (2389)–Keiser (1932), Email 2003
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5
5. d4 Ng6 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 Bb4 8. Qf3 f6 9.
0-0 Bxc3 10. bxc3 d5 11. exd6e.p. cxd6 12. Ba3
N8e7 13. Rfe1 Qc7 14. Bb3 Kd8 15. c4 Bd7
16. Rad1 Qc6 17. Qc3 a5 18. d5 Qc7 19. c5 b5
20. Qd2 b4 21. cxd6 Qxd6 22. Bb2 a4 23. Bc4
Ke8 24. a3 Ne5 25. Ba2 b3 26. cxb3 axb3 27.
Bxb3 Kf7 28. f4 N5g6 29. Re6 Qxf4 30. Qe2
Qb8 31. Ba2 Qa7+ 32. Kh1 Kf8 33. d6 Ng8 34.
Qc4 Nh6 35. Bxf6! gxf6 (35...Bxe6 36.Qxe6 gxf6
37.Qxf6+ Nf7 38.d7 mates shortly) 36. Rxf6+
Ke8 (36...Kg7 37.Qc3) 37. Rxg6 hxg6 38. Qc3
Rh7 39. Qf6 Ba4 40. Qxg6+ Nf7 41. Rf1 Bc2
(41...Bc6 42.Bxf7+ Qxf7 [42...Rxf7 43.Qg8+ Kd7
44.Rxf7+] 43.Rxf7 Rxf7 44.Qg8+ Kd7 [44...Rf8
45.Qe6+ Kd8 46.Qe7+ Kc8 47.Qc7#] 45.Qxf7+
Kxd6 46.h4+−) 42. Qxc2 1–0
3.20.5 References
[1] Krabbé, Tim (2005-11-16). “A Breeze in the Sleepy 4-
Knights Game”. Xs4all.nl. Retrieved 2013-05-09.
[2] Schiller, Eric (1998). “Four Knights • Halloween Gam-
bit”. Unorthodox Chess Openings. Cardoza Publishing.
pp. 160–63. ISBN 0-940685-73-6.
[3] Larry Kaufman, The Chess Advantage in Black and White,
Random House Puzzles & Games, 2004, p. 328. ISBN
0-8129-3571-3.
[4] “UON13 Halloween Edition – Critical lines in the Hal-
loween” (PDF). Chessville.com. Retrieved 2013-05-09.
[5] Jan Pinski, The Four Knights, Gloucester Publishers,
2003, p. 181. ISBN 1-85744-311-X.
[6] Andrew Martin, "Your Chess Questions Answered by An-
drew Martin", Chess.com, 03/09/2009
3.20.6 External links
• Leading expert Grigor Minchev player profile and With 3.d4 White immediately challenges Black in the
games at Chessgames.com centre. In this position, Black has several options.
51
• Steffen Jakob (© 1996–97). “The Halloween-
Attack in the Four Knight Game”. Jakob.at. Re-
trieved 2013-08-03. Check date values in: |date=
(help)
• David Zimbeck (2005-02-01). “The Halloween!".
Zimbeckchess.com. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
Compulsion to Move (blog), theory and examples
• Chess Opening Explorer Chessgames.com
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6
4.Nxe5 (60 games)
• “Halloween Gambit” video and explanation,
TheChessWebsite.com
3.21 Philidor Defence
The Philidor Defence is a chess opening characterised
by the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6
The opening is named after the famous 18th-century
player François-André Danican Philidor, who advocated
it as an alternative to the common 2...Nc6. His original
idea was to challenge White’s centre by the pawn thrust
f7–f5.
Today, the Philidor is known as a solid but passive choice
for Black, and is seldom seen in top-level play except as
an alternative to the heavily analysed openings that can
ensue after the normal 2...Nc6.
The ECO code for Philidor Defence is C41.
3.21.1 Use
The Philidor occurred in one of the most famous games
ever played, the “Opera Box game” played in 1858
between the American chess master Paul Morphy and
two strong amateurs, the German noble Duke Karl of
Brunswick and the French aristocrat Count Isouard. The
game continued 3.d4 Bg4, a deviation from modern stan-
dard lines.
As of 2004, there are no top players who employ the
Philidor with any regularity, although Étienne Bacrot and
Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu have occasionally experimented
with it. Its popularity in master play has increased slightly
over the last twenty years, however.[1]
3.21.2 Lines starting 3.d4
52 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3...exd4 Black experiments to reach the Hanham Variation

The most common Black response is 3...exd4 which re- In recent years, Black has experimented with other move
lieves the central tension, although it gives up the centre. orders in an attempt to reach the Hanham Variation while
After 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3, Black normally continues avoiding 3...Nf6 4.dxe5! and 3...Nd7 4.Bc4!
...Be7 and ...0-0 (the Antoshin Variation) and achieves a
strong defensive position.
• One such line is 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nbd7
In this line Black can also fianchetto his bishop to g7, al- intending 4.Nf3 e5. However, White can deviate
though this is uncommon. Bent Larsen tried this in a few with 4.f4!?[7][8] or even 4.g4!?[9]
games, including a draw against Mikhail Tal in 1969.
Instead of 4.Nxd4, White can also play 4. Qxd4, as Paul • Another try is 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5
Morphy favoured, intending 4... Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. which transposes to the Hanham after 4.Nf3 Nbd7,
Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 followed by 0-0-0. This but White can instead try to gain a small advantage
line was played in many 19th-century games. with 4. dxe5 (Kaufman opines that 4.Nge2 is “also
promising”) 4... dxe5 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8 6. Bc4.[8]
After 4.dxe5, Bauer concludes that “White stands a
Hanham Variation trifle better” but that “provided he plays accurately,
Black doesn't have much to fear following 6.Bc4,
Black’s aim in the Hanham Variation is a strongpoint by choosing any of the three valid replies, 6...Ke8,
defence of e5. 6...Bb4, or 6...Be6. Then 7.Bxe6 fxe6 his position
remains a hard nut to crack.”[10]
The other main option for Black is to maintain the central
tension and adopt a setup with ...Nd7, ...Be7, and ...c6.
This plan is named the Hanham Variation (after the Philidor’s original intention: 3...f5
American chess master James Moore Hanham) and was
favoured by Aron Nimzowitsch. A common line is: 3... Philidor’s original intent 3...f5!?
Nf6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bc4 Be7 6. 0-0 (6.Ng5 is an inter-
esting alternative: after 6...0-0 7.Bxf7+ Rxf7 8.Ne6 Qe8 A more aggressive approach for Black after 3.d4 is
9.Nxc7 Qd8 10.Nxa8, White is material up, but Black 3...f5!? (see diagram), now called the Philidor Counter
can develop a strong initiative after, for example, 10...b5 Gambit, a move which Philidor himself recommended.
11.Nxb5 Qa5+) 6... 0-0 7. a4 (to prevent ...b5) 7... c6 According to Philidor, the move 3...f5 can also be played
(see diagram). after 3.Bc4, which can lead to unique positions such as
Grandmaster Larry Kaufman, in his book The Chess Ad- 3.Bc4 f5 4.d3 c6, possibly followed by f5–f4, b7–b5,
vantage in Black and White, notes that the Hanham Vari- a7–a5, and even g7–g5 and h7–h5, when all Black pawns
ation aims to maintain Black’s pawn on e5, analogously to have moved before any piece.[11]
closed lines of the Ruy Lopez, and opines that “it would In the 19th century, 3...f5 was also played by Paul Mor-
be quite popular and on a par with the major defenses to phy. The move can lead to more open positions than the
1.e4, except for the annoying detail that Black can't actu- other lines, but is often considered dubious.[12][13] Oth-
ally reach the Hanham position by force.”[2] ers maintain that 3...f5 is a valid idea. Grandmaster Tony
As an alternative to 4.Nc3 in response to Black’s 3...Nf6, Kosten treats the move with respect in his monograph on
according to both Kaufman and Grandmaster Christian the opening.[14] The move was also played by David Bron-
Bauer, White retains some advantage with: 4. dxe5! stein and by Teimour Radjabov.
Nxe4 5. Qd5! Nc5 6. Bg5 Be7 7. exd6 Qxd6 8. The main alternatives after 3.d4 f5 are:
Nc3.[3][4]

• 4. Bc4 after which Black should reply 4... exd4

Alternative move order
• 4. Nc3 is also best followed by 4... exd4[15]
Black sometimes tries 3... Nd7 intending 4.Nc3 Ngf6,
reaching the Hanham Variation. But then 4. Bc4! is awk- • 4. dxe5 forces Black to complicate matters further
ward for Black to meet, since 4...Ngf6 loses to 5.Ng5, and with 4... fxe4
4...Be7 loses a pawn to 5.dxe5 Nxe5 (5...dxe5?? 6.Qd5!
wins) 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5![3][5] So 4... c6 is best for
• 4. exf5 e4
Black, but leaves White with the advantage of the bishop
pair after 5. 0-0 Be7 6. dxe5 dxe5 (6...Nxe5 loses a pawn
to 7.Nxe5 dxe5 8.Qh5) 7. Ng5! Bxg5 8. Qh5! Qe7 and All of these lead to a small advantage for White with cor-
now 9.Bxg5 or 9.Qxg5.[6] rect play.
3.22. ELEPHANT GAMBIT 53

3...Bg4?! [10] Bauer 2006, p. 174.

Inferior is 3...Bg4?!, in light of 4. dxe5 Bxf3 (Black can-
not recapture since 4...dxe5? 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8 6. Nxe5
wins a clean pawn; however, Black can gambit a pawn
with 4...Nd7?!, known as the Duke of Brunswick Gam-
bit) 5. Qxf3 dxe5 6. Bc4 giving White the advantage
of the bishop pair in an open position as well as a large
development advantage. Further, Black cannot block the
attack on the f7-pawn with the “natural” 6...Nf6? be-
cause White wins a pawn with 7.Qb3. This was played
in the famous “Opera Box game”, when Paul Morphy as
White declined to take the b7-pawn but retained a strong
initiative after 7...Qe7 8.Nc3.
[11] François André Philidor, Analyse du jeu des Échecs, 1749.
[12] Kaufman 2004, p. 22.
[13] Bauer 2006, pp. 22-32.
[14] Tony Kosten, Winning with the Philidor, Batsford Chess,
1992.
[15] Further recent analysis on this line can be found here.
[16] “Shirov vs Azmaiparashvili, Plovdiv, 2003”. chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2016-09-07.

[17] “Shirov vs Shaw, Catalan Bay, 2005”. chessgames.com.

Shirov Gambit: 5.g4?! Retrieved 2016-09-07.

After 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7, White may play the gambit [18] “Shirov vs Klinova, Gibraltar, 2006”. chessgames.com.
5.g4?!, intending to sacrifice a pawn while opening the g- Retrieved 2016-09-07.
file for his rook with great pressures along the file. Black
usually accepts this gambit, with a typical line being Bibliography
5...Nxg4 6.Rg1 Nf6 7.Bc4 h6 8.Be3 c6. This variation
was popularized by the eponymous Latvian grandmaster
• Christian Bauer, The Philidor Files, Everyman
Alexei Shirov, who played it against the Philidor defense
Chess, 2006. ISBN 1-85744-436-1.
on several occasions.[16][17][18]
• Larry Kaufman, The Chess Advantage in Black and
3.21.3 Line starting 3.Bc4 White, McKay Chess Library, 2004. ISBN 0-8129-
3571-3.
An alternative approach for White is to play 3.Bc4, and
either delay d2–d4, or forgo it altogether and instead play
d2–d3. The move 3.Bc4 is also White’s route to an at- 3.21.6 Further reading
tempted Légal Trap. The continuation 3...Nc6 brings
about the Semi-Italian Opening. • Barsky, Vladimir (2010). The Modern Philidor De-
fence. Chess Stars. ISBN 978-954-8782-77-7.

3.21.4 See also

3.21.7 External links
• List of chess openings
• Opening overview
• List of chess openings named after people
• Shirov’s 5.g4!? gambit in the Philidor
3.21.5 References
[1] The Philidor at Chessgames.com 3.22 Elephant Gambit
[2] Kaufman 2004, p. 65.
The Elephant Gambit (also called the Queen’s Pawn
[3] Kaufman 2004, p. 69. Counter Gambit or Englund Counterattack) is a
[4] Bauer 2006, p. 32. rarely played chess opening beginning with the moves:

[5] Bauer 2006, p. 16.

1. e4 e5
[6] Bauer 2006, pp. 17-22.
2. Nf3 d5!?
[7] Bauer 2006, p. 179.

[8] Kaufman 2004, p. 199.

Although the Elephant Gambit is considered unsound, it
has been used frequently by the Barbadian master Philip
[9] Bauer 2006, pp. 197–206. Corbin.
54 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.22.1 Lines • In Lob–Eliskases, German CC 1929, Black played

White is able to capture either of Black’s center pawns
with the advantage, either by 3.exd5 or 3.Nxe5. With a
center pawn removed, Black is in a passive position with
White clearly having the initiative as White controls more
space.
3...dxe4. The game continued 4.Bc4 Qg5 5.Bxf7+
Ke7 6.d4 Qxg2 7.Rf1 Bh3 8.Bc4 Nf6 9.Bf4, and
White went on to win.
• 3...Qe7? leads to an advantage for White after 4.d4
f6 5.Nd3 dxe4 6.Nf4 Qf7 7.Nd2 (Bondarevsky–
Lilienthal, USSR 1941).

3.exd5
3.22.2 See also
Black’s responses to 3.exd5 include 3...e4 and 3...Bd6
(the Elephant Gambit proper). 3...Qxd5 saves the pawn, • List of chess openings
but leaves White with a big lead in development after
4.Nc3.
3.22.3 References

3...e4 4.Qe2 Nf6 A typical line might continue 3...e4 [1] The game continuation can be found here: Tal–Lutikov,
Tallinn 1964.
4.Qe2 Nf6 5.d3 Qxd5 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.dxe4 Qe6 and White
remains a pawn ahead, although Black’s development is
somewhat smoother. Bibliography
Alternatively, after 4...Nf6:
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld. “Queen’s Pawn
Counter Gambit.” Oxford Companion to Chess. Ox-
• 5.d3 Be7 6.dxe4 0-0 7.Nc3 Re8 8.Bd2 Bb4 9.0-0-0, ford: Oxford University Press, 1992. 329.
with advantage for White (Nick de Firmian).
• Burgess, Graham. The Mammoth Book of Chess.
• 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Nxe4: London: Constable and Robinson, 2000.

• 6...Nxd5 7.d3 0-0 8.Qd1 Bg4 9.Be2 f5 10.Ng3
Nc6 11.c3 with slight advantage for White,
as in Salomonsson–H. Sorenson, Malmo 1982
(de Firmian).
• 6...0-0 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6 8.d4 Re8 9.Be3, with
distinct superiority for White (de Firmian).
3.22.4
3...e4 4.Qe2 f5 3...e4 4.Qe2, Black plays 4...f5 5.d3
Nf6 6.dxe4 fxe4 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Qb5+ c6 9.Qxb4 exf3 with
10.Bg5 cxd5 11.0-0-0 Nc6 as in Tal–Lutikov, Tallinn
1964 (see de Firmian) with advantage for White.[1]
Elephant Gambit proper: 3.exd5 Bd6
• de Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings
(14th ed.). New York: David McKay Company Inc.
pp. 150–51.
External links
• Harding, Tim (August 1997). The Kibitzer: We're
Going On An Elephant Hunt at ChessCafe.com
• The Elephant Gambit (Over 100 games) at Chess-
games.com
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 (1850 games)

3.23 Damiano Defence

Elephant Gambit proper: 3...Bd6 3...Bd6 4.d4 e4
5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Bc4 and according to de Firmian,
The Damiano Defence is a chess opening beginning with
White enjoys a distinct superiority but no immediate at-
the moves:
tack.

1. e4 e5
3.Nxe5
2. Nf3 f6?
After 3.Nxe5:
The defence is one of the oldest chess openings, with
• Black plays 3...Bd6 4.d4 dxe4 5.Bc4 Bxe5 6.Qh5 games dating back to the 16th century.
Qf6 7.dxe5, which is thought to be slightly better The ECO code for the Damiano Defence is C40 (King’s
for White. Knight Opening).
3.23. DAMIANO DEFENCE
3.23.1 3.d4 and 3.Bc4
Black’s 2...f6? is a weak move that exposes Black’s king,
weakens Black’s kingside and takes away his knight’s best
square. The moves 3.d4 and 3.Bc4 are strong replies;
I.A. Horowitz wrote (substituting algebraic notation for
his descriptive notation), “Simple and potent is 3.Bc4 d6
4.d4 Nc6 5.c3, after which Black chokes to death.”[1]
3.23.2 3.Nxe5!
Position after 8...h5.
Most forceful, however, is the knight sacrifice 3.Nxe5![2]
Taking the knight with 3...fxe5? exposes Black to
a deadly attack after 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (4...g6 loses to
5.Qxe5+, forking king and rook) 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+
d5! (6...Kg6?? 7.Qf5+ is devastating and leads to mate
shortly after) 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 (8.d4? Bd6!) h5 (dia-
gram; 8...h6 is similar, except Black can't play 9...Bxb7
because of 10. Qf5#) 9.Bxb7! Bd6 (9...Bxb7 10.Qf5+
Kh6 11.d4+ g5 12.Qf7! mates quickly) 10.Qa5!, when
Black’s best is 10...Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8, and now White
will be ahead by several pawns. Bruce Pandolfini notes
that Black’s opening is thus sometimes described as “the
five pawns gambit".[3] Alternatively, White can continue 3.23.4
developing his pieces, remaining four pawns up. In either
case, White has a clearly winning position.
Since taking the knight is fatal, after 3.Nxe5 Black should
instead play 3...Qe7![4] (other Black third moves, such as
3...d5, lead to 4. Qh5+! g6 5. Nxg6!). After 4.Nf3
(4.Qh5+? g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Qxg6 leaves Black
ahead a piece for a pawn) [4] Qxe4+ 5.Be2, Black has
regained the pawn but has lost time and weakened his
kingside, and will lose more time when White chases the
queen with Nc3, or 0-0, Re1, and a move by the bishop on
e2. Nick de Firmian in Modern Chess Openings analyzes
instead 4...d5 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4, when White had a small
advantage in Schiffers–Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1897.[5]
The fact that Black can only regain the pawn with 3...Qe7!
shows that 2...f6? did not really defend the e-pawn at all.
Indeed, even a relatively useless move like 2...a6?! is less
risky than 2...f6?. After 2...a6?! 3.Nxe5, Black could
still regain the pawn with 3...Qe7 4.d4 d6, when he would
have done so without weakening his kingside or depriving
the king’s knight of its best square.
3.23.3 History
Position after 10.Ne5!, White wins Black’s queen. If the
Knight is captured, 11. Bh5 pins the queen to the king,
while 10...Qf5 leads to 11. Bg4 and the queen is trapped
(11...Qxe5 12. Qxd7#).
Ironically, the opening is named after the Portuguese
55
master Pedro Damiano (1480–1544), who condemned
it as weak. In 1847, Howard Staunton wrote of 2...f6,
“This move occurs in the old work of Damiano, who gives
some ingenious variations on it. Lopez, and later authors,
have hence entitled it 'Damiano’s Gambit'.”[6] Staunton’s
contemporary George Walker instead, more logically, re-
served the term “Damiano Gambit” for the knight sacri-
fice played by White on the third move: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
f6 3.Nxe5.[7] Staunton referred to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, a
highly respected move then and now, as “Damiano’s de-
fence to the K. Kt.'s opening”.[8]
The Damiano Defence is never seen today in top-level
play. The greatest player to play the Damiano in seri-
ous master competition was Mikhail Chigorin. As noted
above, he played the 3...Qe7 line in a game against Em-
manuel Schiffers at Saint Petersburg 1897. Chigorin lost
his queen on move 10 (see diagram), but Schiffers played
so weakly that Chigorin later missed a brilliant forced
mate and only escaped when Schiffers agreed to a draw in
a winning position.[9] Robert McGregor played the Dami-
ano in a 1964 simultaneous exhibition against Bobby Fis-
cher, essaying 3...Qe7 4.Nf3 d5 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Qxe4+
7.Be2 Bf5, and drew, although Fischer did not play the
best moves.[10]
References
[1] I.A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice, Si-
mon and Schuster, 1964, p. 227 n. 31.
[2] Understanding the Chess Openings, Sam Collins, 2005, p.
28.
[3] Bruce Pandolfini, Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps, Simon
& Schuster, 1989, p. 92. ISBN 0-671-65690-2.
[4] Pandolfini 1989, p. 91.
[5] Modern Chess Openings, 15th Edition, Random House
Puzzles & Games, 2008, p. 156. ISBN 978-0-8129-
3682-7.
[6] Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook, Henry
C. Bohn, 1847, p. 60.
[7] Walker wrote of the knight sacrifice, “This constitutes
the Damiano Gambit.” George Walker, The Art of Chess-
Play: A New Treatise on the Game of Chess (4th ed. 1846),
Sherwood, Gilbert, & Piper, p. 236.
[8] Staunton, p. 64.
[9] “The Richter riddle”. OPEN CHESS DIARY (scroll down
to No. 222). Retrieved 2006-03-20.
[10] Bobby Fischer and Damiano’s Defense.
Chessstuff.blogspot.com. Retrieved on 2009-04-02.
56 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.23.5 External links McConnell game

• “Defeating Damiano’s Defense”. The Kenilwor- Morphy vs. McConnell, New Orleans 1849:[2]
thian. 2010-07-28. Retrieved 2012-07-20. A com-
prehensive list of material available online about
Damiano’s Defense. 5. e5 Qg6 6. Bd3
3.24 Greco Defence
The Greco Defence (or McConnell Defense), named
after Gioachino Greco (c. 1600 – c. 1634), is a chess
opening beginning with the moves:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Qf6
The opening is categorized as ECO code C40.
3.24.1 Discussion
Of the several plausible ways Black has to defend his e-
pawn, 2...Qf6 is considered one of the weaker choices,
since the queen is developed prematurely and can be-
come a target for attack. Also, the black knight on g8
is deprived of its most natural square. There is, however,
no obvious refutation of this opening; White’s advantage 3.24.3 See also
consists mainly of being able to develop more smoothly.
Although it is a popular opening choice by novice play-
ers, it has also been used by players who, according to
International Master Gary Lane, “should know better”.
3.24.2 Examples
Greco line
Greco himself illustrated the following amusing line
against this defense in 1620:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6?! 3. Bc4 Qg6 4. 0-0
Qxe4 5. Bxf7+ Ke7
5...Kxf7?? 6.Ng5+ wins the black
queen.
6. Re1 Qf4 7. Rxe5+ Kxf7
7...Kd8 8.Re8#
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. d4 exd4
6.Qxd4! gives White a big lead in
development.
6... Qxg2 7. Rg1 Qh3 8. Rg3 Qh5 9. Rg5
Qh3 10. Bf1 Qe6 11. Nxd4 (see diagram)
... and Morphy was better.
Busch game
Paulsen vs. Busch, Düsseldorf 1863:[3]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Bc4 Nh6
Making some sense, since Black is
able to respond ...Qxh6 if White
were to play d4 followed by Bxh6.
4. 0-0 Bc5 5. Nc3 c6 6. d4! Bxd4 7. Nxd4
exd4 8. e5 Qg6 9. Qxd4
And again, White is ahead in devel-
opment.
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
3.24.4 References
[1] Opening Lanes Gary Lane, Chesscafe.com, 2001, last
question on the page.
[2] Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). “Greco Defence”.
Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company.
pp. 91–92. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.
[3] Schiller, Eric (1998). “McConnell Defense”. Unorthodox
Chess Openings. Cardoza Publishing. p. 287. ISBN 0-
940685-73-6.
3.25 Gunderam Defense
The Gunderam Defense[1][2] is a rarely played chess
opening starting with the moves:

8. d4 Qf6 9. Ng5+ Kg6 10. Qd3+ Kh6 11. 1. e4 e5

Nf7# 1–0[1] 2. Nf3 Qe7

Morphy vs. McConnell, 1849 It is named after the chess player Gerhard
Position after 11.Nxd4 Gunderam.[3][4] The Gunderam Defense is catego-
rized under the ECO code C40.
3.26. LATVIAN GAMBIT 57

3.25.1 Overview 3.26.1 History

Although 2...Qe7 does answer the threat against Black’s The opening was originally known as the Greco
e-pawn, it interferes with the development of Black’s Counter-Gambit, and some modern writers still refer
dark-square bishop. One of the ideas behind this awk- to it as such.[5] That name recognised the Italian player
ward queen move is to unbalance the game by castling Gioachino Greco (1600–34), who contributed to the early
queenside while White will presumably castle kingside. theory of the opening. The name Latvian Gambit is a
tribute to the Latvian players, notably Kārlis Bētiņš, who
analysed it in the early part of the 20th century.
3.25.2 See also
• List of chess openings
3.26.2 White’s third move
• List of chess openings named after people
Many responses for White have been analyzed.[6] The
most important of these are:
3.25.3 Notes
[1] Bangor Chess Club 3.Nxe5
[2] Chess-Theory.com OPENINGS THEORY - ECO
CODES BASE C40 White’s 3.Nxe5 is the main line. After the usual 3...Qf6,
White chooses between 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 and the im-
[3] Bill Wall’s list of chess openings
mediate 4.Nc4, which has the advantage of allowing
[4] Chess Archaeology: Openings classified under ECO C40 White to open the center with d3, for example 4...fxe4
5.Nc3 Qg6?! 6.d3 exd3? 7.Bxd3 Qxg2? and now
White is winning after 8.Qh5+ Kd8 (or 8...g6 9.Qe5+
3.26 Latvian Gambit and 10.Be4) 9.Be4. However, if 6... Bb4, white must
be careful following the same line, e.g. 7. Bd2 exd3
8. Bxd3 Qxg2 9. Qh5+ Kd8 10. Be4 Nf6! because
The Latvian Gambit or Greco Counter Gambit is a
now if white plays Bg5, which would be necessary to
chess opening characterised by the moves:
win the queen in the earlier line, then Bxc3+ wins for
black. The main line continues 5...Qf7 6.Ne3! Black
1. e4 e5
usually responds with 6...c6!?, when White can either ac-
2. Nf3 f5?! cept the pawn sacrifice with 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 Qf6 9.Nf3,
or decline it with the more popular 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5
It is one of the oldest chess openings, having been anal- 9.0-0.[7] The latter variation has been deeply analyzed;
ysed in the 17th century by Gioachino Greco, after whom the British Grandmaster Anthony Kosten analyzes one
it is sometimes named. The opening has the appearance line to move 32.[8] One line discussed by International
of a King’s Gambit with colours reversed. It is an ag- Master Jeremy Silman is 9...Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4
gressive but rather dubious choice for Black which often d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4 Ne7 14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.bxc5 Nbc6
leads to wild and tricky positions.[1][2] FIDE Master Den- 16.Bb2 0–0 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Nxf5
nis Monokroussos even goes so far as to describe it as 20.Be3 Qxc4 21.Qb3 Nxe3!? 22.fxe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1
“possibly the worst opening in chess”.[3] As assessed by Qxb3 24.axb3 Rc8 25.Rf5 and now 25...Rd8 or 25...Rc6
Paul van der Sterren: gives Black an excellent chances to draw the pawn-down
endgame.[9] Silman later argued that 10.b4!! and now
What is required to play the Latvian 10...Bxb4 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 or 10...Bd6 11.Re1!
Gambit with any degree of success is a sharp Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 is close to winning for
eye for tactics and a mental attitude of total White, and that the “old, discredited” 9...Bd6 (rather than
contempt for whatever theory has to say about 9...Bc5) might be Black’s best try, though still insufficient
it. for equality.[10]
— Paul van der Sterren, Fundamental Chess
Also possible is the eccentric 3...Nc6?!, against which
Openings
John Nunn recommends 4.d4.[11] After 4.d4, Kosten an-
alyzes 4...Qf6!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.exf5! Nxe5 7.Qe2.[12]
Instead of 4.d4, Kosten says that White can accept the
The Latvian is uncommon at the top level of over-the- proffered rook with 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 hxg6
board play, but some correspondence chess players are 7.Qxh8 Qe7 (7...fxe4? 8.d4! is strong) 8.d3! (Ste-
devoted to it.[2][4] fan Bücker gives an alternative 8.Nc3! Nb4 9.d3 as
The ECO code for the Latvian Gambit is C40 (King’s also winning for White)[13] 8...fxe4 9.Be3 d5 10.Bc5!
Knight Opening). Qxc5 11.Qxf6 Bf5 12.dxe4 Nd4 13.exf5! Nxc2+ 14.Kd1
58 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

Nxa1 15.Bd3 Qd6 16.Re1+ Kd7 17.Qf7+ Be7 18.Re6 sacrifice with either 6.Nc3!? or 6.Nd2!?, but Black seems
winning.[14] to have adequate resources against both.[26]

3.Bc4 3.26.3 See also

White’s 3.Bc4 may lead to perhaps the most notorious • List of chess openings
and heavily analysed line of the Latvian, which begins
3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 • List of chess openings named after places
8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 Qxc1 (9...c6 is a major alter-
native) 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8
3.26.4 References
13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3![15]
However, instead of 4...Qg5, “nowadays players often
give preference to 4...d5”, the Svedenborg Variation.[16]
According to Latvian Gambit experts Kon Grivainis and
John Elburg, Black wins more often than White in this
line.[17] After 4...d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6, Black chooses
between 6...Nf6 and 6...hxg6. 6...Nf6 usually leads, after
7.Qe5+ Be7 8.Bb5+! c6 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7
11.Be2 (11.Bf1!?), to an endgame where Black is a pawn
down but has considerable positional compensation.[18]
Sharper is 6...hxg6, when 7.Qxh8 Kf7 9.Qd4 Be6 gives
White a large material advantage, but his “position is con-
stantly on the edge of a precipice”, and the line has ac-
cordingly fallen out of favor.[19] More often, White plays
7.Qxg6+ Kd7 8.Bxd5 Nf6, leading to sharp and unclear
play.[20]
3.Nc3
White’s 3.Nc3 was originally analyzed by the Ameri-
can master Stasch Mlotkowski (1881–1943) in the 1916
British Chess Magazine.[21] Kosten gives as Black’s two
main responses 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 (4.exf5 is also possible)
fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Nxd5! Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6! hxg6!
9.Qxg6+ Kd7 10.Bxd5 Qe7 11.Qxe4 Rh4 12.Qxe7+
Bxe7, reaching an endgame where White has four pawns
for a minor piece, and 4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 Qf6, when White
can choose from 6.Nc4! (transposing to the main line
3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3), 6.d4, and 6.f4!?[22]
Black can also play 3...d6, when 4.d4 transposes to the
Philidor Counter-Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5!?),
which was favored by Paul Morphy in the mid-19th cen-
tury and is still seen occasionally today.[21][23]
[1] John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gal-
lagher, Nunn’s Chess Openings, Everyman Chess, 1999, p.
285. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
[2] Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition,
Random House Puzzles & Games, 2008, p. 144. ISBN
978-0-8129-3682-7.
[3] Dennis Monokroussos, One man’s trash is another man’s
treasure, ChessBase, 8 November 2007
[4] Latvian Gambit analyzed by correspondence chess play-
ers, Wikichess.
[5] Larry Evans, The Chess Opening for You, RHM Press,
1975, p. 29. ISBN 0-89058-020-0.
[6] Tony Kosten, The Latvian Gambit Lives!, Batsford, 2001,
pp. 7, 117, 175, 199, 210, 217. ISBN 0-7134-8629-
5. The responses not mentioned in this article are 3.d3,
3.b4?!, 3.c4!?, 3.Qe2!?, 3.b3?!, and 3.g4? None of those
moves offer White any advantage. Id. at 217.
[7] Kosten 2001, pp. 78-79, 83-84.
[8] Kosten 2001, p. 96.
[9] Jeremy Silman, Two Wild Black Systems. Jeremysil-
man.com. Retrieved on 2009-06-11.
[10] More Splat the Lat. Jeremysilman.com. Retrieved on
2006-06-11.
[11] Nunn, Burgess, Emms & Gallagher 1999, p. 297.
[12] Kosten 2001, p. 112.
[13] Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit Part 1. Retrieved on
2010-05-09.

[14] Kosten 2001, pp. 107-12.

3.exf5
[15] Kosten 2001, pp. 124-39. Kosten calls 4...Qg5 “probably
one of the sharpest and most extensively analyzed opening
White’s 3.exf5 followed by e4 4.Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 is recom-
variations of all.” Id. at 117.
mended by John L. Watson and Eric Schiller.[24] 4.Qe2,
4.Nd4, and even 4.Ng1!? (leading to a sort of King’s [16] Kosten 2001, p. 117.
Gambit with colours reversed) are also possible.[25]
[17] Kon Grivainis and John Elburg, New Developments in the
Latvian Gambit, Chess Enterprises, 1998, p. 6. ISBN 0-
3.d4 945470-69-X.

[18] Kosten 2001, pp. 159-64.

White’s 3.d4 followed by fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Bg5 d6
leads, as usual, to sharp play. White often offers a piece [19] Kosten 2001, p. 151.
3.27. ROUSSEAU GAMBIT 59

[20] Kosten 2001, pp. 140-50. 4.d4!

[21] Kosten 2001, p. 210.
White gets a clear advantage with 4.d4!:
[22] Kosten 2001, pp. 213-14.
[23] Christian Bauer, The Philidor Files, Gloucester Publish- • 4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne7 7.0-0 a6 8.Bxc6+
ers, 2006, pp. 22-32. ISBN 978-1-85744-436-0. bxc6 (8...Nxc6? 9.Qh5+) 9.f3 Bf5 10.Nc3 +/−
[24] Latvian Gambit. jeremysilman.com. Retrieved on 2009- (Bilguer Handbuch).[1][2]
04-05.
• 4...d6 and now:
[25] Kosten 2001, pp. 188-98.
• 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.d5 Nb8 (6...Ne7 7.Nc3 f4 8.g3
[26] Kosten 2001, pp. 199-209.
Ng6 9.Bb5+ +/−; Maróczy) 7.Nc3 f4 8.h4 Bg4
9.f3 Bd7 10.g3 fxg3 11.f4 +/− (Sozin).
3.26.5 External links • 5.dxe5 and now:
• Le gambit letton (French) • 5...fxe4 6.Qd5 Qe7 7.Bg5 Be6 8.Qxe4
+/− de Rivière–Anderssen, London
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 (6177 games) 1862.[1]
• 5...dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Nxd8 (6...Kxd8
7.Bg5+ Nf6 8.Nc3 +/− Morphy–
3.27 Rousseau Gambit Worrall, London 1859) 7.Nxe5 fxe4
8.Bd2 Bd6 9.Bc3 +/− Löwenthal &
The Rousseau Gambit is a chess opening that begins Medley vs Morphy & Mongredien,
with the moves: London 1857.[1]

1. e4 e5 • 4...Nf6 5.dxe5 Nxe4 6.0-0 Bc5 7.Nc3 Nxc3 8.bxc3

2. Nf3 Nc6 h6 9.Nd4 g6 10.Nb3 +/− (Bilguer).[1]
3. Bc4 f5
3.27.2 See also
The gambit is named after Eugène Rousseau. White
can decline the gambit by supporting the e-pawn with • Latvian Gambit
4.d3. The resulting position is similar to a King’s Gam-
bit Declined with colours reversed, and White’s king • List of chess openings
bishop aiming at Black’s weakened kingside. Black will
have trouble castling kingside and Ng5 is a likely threat. • List of chess openings named after people
White’s position is better, but still requires careful play.
Key themes for White are to attack Black’s kingside and
to avoid attempts by Black to simplify the position. Ex- 3.27.3 References
changes involving White’s light-square bishop are partic-
[1] T. D. Harding; G. S. Botterill (1977), The Italian Game,
ularly suspect.
B. T. Batsford Limited, p. 128, ISBN 0-7134-3261-6

[2] Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982), Batsford Chess

3.27.1 White responses Openings, American Chess Promotions, p. 308, ISBN 0-
7134-2112-6
Gambit Declined: 4.d3

White can decline the gambit and to wait to capture the 3.27.4
f-pawn.
Gambit Accepted: 4.exf5
White still has a good game after the inferior 4.exf5, but
the position is less clear. Black usually plays 4...e4, which
White may meet by 5.Nd4! Nf6 (5...Nxd4? leads to trou-
ble after 6.Qh5+) 6.Nxc6.
External links
• Tim McGrew (2002-07-01). “Giuoco Fortis-
simo: The Rousseau Gambit Part 1” (PDF).
Chesscafe.com.
• Tim McGrew (2002-07-30). “Giuoco Fortis-
simo: The Rousseau Gambit Part 2” (PDF).
Chesscafe.com.

After 4.d4 • Tim McGrew (2003-09-22). “Gambits In Many Di-

mensions” (PDF). Chesscafe.com.
60 CHAPTER 3. E4 OPENINGS – KING’S KNIGHT OPENINGS

3.28 Petrov’s Defence the Four Knights Game. With move 3...Bb4 (or some
others), Black can enter the Petrov’s Three Knights
The Petrov Defence (also called Petrov’s Defence, Game proper.
Petroff’s Defence, Russian Game and Russian De-
fence) is a chess opening characterised by the following 3.Bc4
moves:
3.Bc4 is the Italian Variation of Petrov’s Defense. With
1. e4 e5 move 3...Nc6, it transposes to the Two Knights Defence.
2. Nf3 Nf6
Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit Another possibility is
Though this symmetrical response has a long history, 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3, the Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit. It
it was first popularised by Alexander Petrov, a Russian is not considered wholly sound, since Black has several
chess player of the mid-19th century. In recognition of viable options. He can accept the gambit with 4...Nxc3
the early investigations by the Russian masters Petrov and 5.dxc3 f6, although he must play carefully after 6.0-0
Carl Jaenisch, this opening is called the Russian Game in (for example 6...Bc5?? 7.Nxe5! is disastrous; 6...d6 and
some countries. 6...Nc6 are good). Another, more aggressive try is 6.Nh4,
The Petrov has a reputation of being dull and uninspired. where White goes for a quick assault on Black’s king, but
However, it offers attacking opportunities for both sides, Black can maintain a small advantage if he plays cau-
and a few lines are quite sharp. Often a trade occurs and tiously via 6...g6 7.f4 Qe7 8.f5 Qg7 9.Qg4 Kd8. Another
Black, after gaining a tempo, has a well-placed knight. possibility is returning the gambit pawn with 4...Nxc3
Pillsbury’s game in 1895[1] against Emanuel Lasker tes- 5.dxc3 c6 6.Nxe5 d5, which equalises. A third possibil-
tifies to this. The Black counterattack in the centre also ity is transposing to the Italian Four Knights Game with
avoids the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano (and other lines of 4...Nc6, and if 5.Nxe4, d5. If 5.Bxf7+?, Kxf7 6.Nxe4
the Italian Game), and the Scotch Game. Grandmasters d5 gives Black the bishop pair and control of the center.
Anatoly Karpov, Artur Yusupov, Vasily Smyslov, Frank If 5.0-0, Black plays 5...Nxc3 6.dxc3 and now Black
Marshall, Vladimir Kramnik, and Harry Pillsbury have can play 6...Qe7!, after which Bobby Fischer wrote that
frequently played the Petrov as Black. “White has no compensation for the Pawn”,[3] or 6...f6
transposing to the main line of the Boden–Kieseritzky.
The ECO codes for Petrov’s Defence are C43 (for 3.d4) Black also has lines beginning 6...Be7 and 6...h6.
and C42 (for all other lines).[2]

3.Nxe5
3.28.1 White’s third move
After 3.Nxe5, Black should not continue to copy White’s
White has four main choices for his third move: moves and try to restore the material balance immedi-
ately with 3...Nxe4? because after 4.Qe2 White will ei-
• 3.Nc3, which may transpose to the Four Knights ther win material (4...Nf6?? 5.Nc6+ wins Black’s queen,
Game or the Three Knights Game and after 4...d5 5.d3 Qe7 6.dxe4 Qxe5 7.exd5 Black loses
a pawn), or obtain a superior position (4...Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6
• 3.Bc4, which may lead to the Boden–Kieseritzky 6.d4 f6 7.Nc3 dxe5 8.Nd5 Qd6 9.Bf4 Nd7 10.0-0-0 and
Gambit or transpose to the Two Knights Defence White has a big advantage). Black usually plays 3...d6 (al-
though 3...Qe7 is also possible). White now must retreat
• 3.Nxe5, the Classical variation the knight, or sacrifice it.
• 3.d4, the Steinitz Variation After 3.Nxe5 d6

White usually prefers 3.Nxe5, 3.Nc3, or 3.d4.

• 4.Nf3, the Main Line

3.Nc3 • 4.Nc4, Paulsen’s Variation

After 3.Nc3 • 4.Nd3, Karklin’s Attack

After 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3 (the Boden–Kieseritzky Gam- • 4.Nxf7, Cochrane Gambit
bit)
More often, White follows the main line 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4
3.Nc3 is the Three Knights Game of Petrov’s Defense. (5.Bd3!? is also playable) d5 6.Bd3, where he will try to
It is also reached by 2...Nf6 3.Nf3 from the Vienna drive Black’s advanced knight from e4 with moves like
Game. Commonly, with move 3...Nc6, it transposes to c4 and Re1. White can instead force simplification with
3.28. PETROV’S DEFENCE 61

Lasker's 5.Qe2 Qe7 6.d3. This is generally only good 3.28.4 References
enough for a draw, which Black should be satisfied with.
Another possibility, explored by Keres, is 5.c4, known as • “Petrov Defense (C42)". Chess openings. Chess-
the Kauffmann Attack. games.com. Retrieved 2007-04-26.
A completely different approach is to meet 4...Nxe4 • ICC free vids with the Petroff, Najditsch–Kramnik
with 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3, with rapid development and (Dortmund 2008) here Kramnik was defeated with
queenside castling. For instance, White can plan a quick a novelty in a 5.Nc3 line
Be3, Qd2, and 0-0-0, and play for a kingside attack, trust-
ing that his doubled c-pawns will help protect his king, • ICC free vids with the Petroff, Karjakin–Jakovenko
and that his initiative and attacking potential will offset (Aerosvit 2008)
the long term disadvantage of having doubled pawns. In
• ICC free vids with the Petroff, Anand–Kramnik
the 5.Nc3 line, Black must avoid 5...Bf5?? 6.Qe2! which
(Corus 2008)
wins a piece due to the pin (if 6...Qe7 7.Nd5, forcing
7...Qd7 because of the threat to the c7 pawn. Then 8. d3 • ICC free vids with the Petroff, Ivanchuk–Kramnik
wins the piece). Viswanathan Anand resigned after only (Tal Memorial 2007)
six moves after falling for this against Alonso Zapata at
Biel in 1988.[4] • ICC free vids with the Petroff, Anand–Kramnik
(Mexico 2007)
The Cochrane Gambit, 4.Nxf7, is labeled “speculative
but entertaining” by Nick de Firmian. In Modern Chess
Openings–14 he evaluates the position in Veselin Topalov 3.28.5 Further reading
vs. Vladimir Kramnik, Linares 1999, as offering chances
for both sides after 4...Kxf7 5.Nc3 c5!? 6.Bc4+ Be6 • Raetsky, Alexander; Chetverik, Maxim (2005).
7.Bxe6+ Kxe6 8.d4 Kf7 9.dxc5 Nc6.[5] “Petroff Defence”. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-
85744-378-0.
3.d4 • Kotronias, Vassilios; Tzermiadianos, Andreas
(2005). Beating The Petroff. Batsford. ISBN
Wilhelm Steinitz favoured 3.d4. Black can capture ei- 978-0-7134-8919-4.
ther white pawn. After 3...exd4 4.e5 (4.Bc4 transposes
into the Urusov Gambit) Ne4 (4...Qe7?! 5.Be2 is bet-
ter for White) 5.Qxd4 d5 6.exd6 Nxd6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Qf4 3.28.6 External links
the game is approximately equal. After the other cap-
ture, 3...Nxe4, 4.Bd3 d5 (4...Nc6!? 5.Bxe4 d5, intend- • Petrov’s Defence Video and explanation
ing 6.Bd3 e4, is also possible) 5.Nxe5, either 5...Nd7
• Petrov’s defence (C42) – 365Chess.com ECO
or 5...Bd6 gives roughly equal chances. Also possible is
Games
3...d6, transposing into the Philidor Defence.
• The Cochrane Gambit – C42
3.28.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people

3.28.3 Notes
[1] Lasker vs Pillsbury, 1895, 0–1 http://www.chessgames.
com/perl/chessgame?gid=1109091
[2] • “ECO Code by Chess Informant”.
www.chessinformant.rs. Chess Informant.
Retrieved 29 January 2015.
[3] Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games, Faber and
Faber, 1972, pp. 280–81. ISBN 0-571-09987-4.
[4] “Alonso Zapata vs Viswanathan Anand”. Chess-
Games.com. Retrieved 13 June 2011.
[5] De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings (14th
ed.), Random House, ISBN 0-8129-3084-3
Chapter 4

e4 Openings – Sicilian Defence

4.1 Sicilian Defence me one of your center pawns.″

— Jonathan Rowson, Chess for Zebras:
The Sicilian Defence is a chess opening that begins with Thinking Differently About Black and
the following moves: White[6]

1. e4 c5
The earliest recorded notes on the Sicilian Defence date
back to the late 16th century by the Italian chess players
The Sicilian is the most popular and best-scoring response Giulio Polerio and Gioachino Greco.[7][8]
to White’s first move 1.e4. 1.d4 is a statistically more suc-
cessful opening for white due to the high success rate of
the Sicilian defence against 1.e4.[1] New In Chess stated 4.1.1 General concepts
in its 2000 Yearbook that of the games in its database,
White scored 56.1% in 296,200 games beginning 1.d4, By advancing the c-pawn two squares, Black asserts con-
but 54.1% in 349,855 games beginning 1.e4, mainly due trol over the d4-square and begins the fight for the centre
to the Sicilian, which held White to a 52.3% score in of the board. The move resembles 1…e5, the next
145,996 games.[2] most common response to 1.e4, in that respect. Unlike
17% of all games between grandmasters, and 25% of the 1...e5, however, 1...c5 breaks the symmetry of the po-
games in the Chess Informant database, begin with the sition, which strongly influences both players’ future ac-
Sicilian.[3] Almost one quarter of all games use the Sicil- tions. White, having pushed a kingside pawn, tends to
ian Defence.[4] hold the initiative on that side of the board. Moreover,
1...c5 does little for Black’s development, unlike moves
Grandmaster John Nunn attributes the Sicilian Defence’s such as 1...e5, 1...g6, or 1...Nc6, which either develop a
popularity to “its combative nature; in many lines Black minor piece or prepare to do so. In many variations of the
is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage. Sicilian, Black makes a number of further pawn moves
The drawback is that White often obtains an early ini- in the opening (for example, ...d6, ...e6, ...a6, and ...b5).
tiative, so Black has to take care not to fall victim to a Consequently, White often obtains a substantial lead in
quick attack.”[5] Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson consid- development and dangerous attacking chances.
ered why the Sicilian is the most successful response to
1.e4, even though 1...c5 develops no pieces, and the pawn Meanwhile, advancing a queenside pawn has given Black
on c5 controls only d4 and b4. Rowson writes: a spatial advantage there and provides a basis for fu-
ture operations on that flank. Often, Black’s c5-pawn
is traded for White’s d4-pawn in the early stages of the
To my mind there is quite a straightfor- game, granting Black a central pawn majority. The pawn
ward explanation. In order to profit from the trade also opens the c-file for Black, who can place a rook
initiative granted by the first move, White or queen on that file to aid their queenside counterplay.
has to make use of his opportunity to do
something before Black has an equal number
of opportunities of his own. However, to do 4.1.2 History
this, he has to make 'contact' with the black
position. The first point of contact usually The Sicilian Defence was analysed by Giulio Polerio in
comes in the form of a pawn exchange, which his 1594 manuscript on chess,[9] though he did not use
leads to the opening of the position. … So the term “Sicilian Defence”.[10] It was later the subject of
the thought behind 1...c5 is this: ″OK, I'll let analyses by leading players of the day Alessandro Salvio
you open the position, and develop your pieces (1604), Don Pietro Carrera (c. 1617), and Gioachino
aggressively, but at a price – you have to give Greco (1623), and later Comte Carlo Francesco Cozio (c.

62
4.1. SICILIAN DEFENCE 63

1740). The great French player and theoretician André ... [It] is too defensive. There are too many holes cre-
Danican Philidor opined of the Sicilian in 1777, “This ated in the Pawn line. Command of the field, especially
way of opening the game ... is absolutely defensive, and in the centre, is too readily given over to the invading
very far from being the best ... but it is a very good one to force.”[22] Siegbert Tarrasch wrote that 1...c5 “is certainly
try the strength of an adversary with whose skill you are not strictly correct, for it does nothing toward develop-
unacquainted.”[11] ment and merely attempts to render difficult the build-
In 1813, the English master Jacob Henry Sarratt effec- ing up of a centre by the first player. ... [T]he Sicilian
tively standardised his English translation of the name Defence is excellent for a strong player who is prepared
to take risks to force a win against an inferior opponent.
of this opening as “the Sicilian Defence”, referring to
an old Italian manuscript that used the phrase, “il gioco Against best play, however, it is bound to fail.”[23] The
Sicilian was not seen even once in the 75 games played at
siciliano” (“The Sicilian Game”).[12] The Sicilian was
fairly popular for much of the nineteenth century; Louis- the great St. Petersburg 1914 tournament.[24]
Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, Adolf Anderssen, Nonetheless, some leading players, such as Emanuel
Howard Staunton, Louis Paulsen, and Carl Jaenisch all Lasker (World Champion from 1894 to 1921), Frank
played it with some consistency. In the ninth edition of Marshall, Savielly Tartakower, and Aron Nimzowitsch,
Modern Chess Openings, Walter Korn noted that the Si- and later Max Euwe (World Champion from 1935 to
cilian “received three of its earliest practical tests, and a 1937) played the Sicilian.[25] Even Capablanca[26][27] and
big boost in popularity, in the 1834 MacDonnell [sic]–La Tarrasch,[28] despite their critical comments, occasionally
Bourdonnais match, 1843 Staunton–St. Amant match, played the opening. It was played six times (out of 110
and the 1851 London Tournament.”[13] Staunton wrote games) at New York 1924.[29] The following year, the
of the Sicilian, “In the opinion of Jaenisch and the Ger- authors of Modern Chess Openings (4th edition) wrote,
man 'Handbuch', with which I coincide, this is the best “The Sicilian has claims to be considered as the best of
possible reply to 1.P-K4, [1.e4 in algebraic notation] 'as it the irregular defences to 1.P-K4 at Black’s disposal, and
renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White has been practised with satisfactory results by the lead-
and prevents every attack.' "[14] ing players of the day.”[upper-alpha 3] In this period Black’s
The opening fell out of favour in the later part of the nine- approach was usually slow and positional, and the all-out
teenth century, when some of the world’s leading play- attacks by White that became [30] common after World War
ers rejected it.[upper-alpha 1]
Paul Morphy, the world’s best II had not yet been developed.
player in the late 1850s, decried “that pernicious fond- The fortunes of the Sicilian were further revived in the
ness for the Sicilian Defense ... extending from about 1940s and 1950s by players such as Isaac Boleslavsky,
1843 to some time after 1851”.[15] Wilhelm Steinitz, the Alexander Kotov, and Miguel Najdorf. Reuben Fine, one
first World Champion, also disliked the Sicilian and re- of the world’s leading players during this time period,
jected it in favour of 1...e5.[upper-alpha 2][16] The death of wrote of the Sicilian in 1948, “Black gives up control
the opening’s two greatest proponents, Staunton and An- of the centre, neglects his development, and often sub-
derssen, in 1874 and 1879 respectively, also contributed mits to horribly cramped positions. How can it be good?
to its decline. It has been said that “these losses almost Yet, the brilliant wins by White are matched by equally
dealt a knockout blow to the Sicilian because it took a brilliant wins by Black; time and again the Black struc-
long time to find such important figures to carry the Si- ture has been able to take everything and come back for
cilian’s standard.”[17] George H. D. Gossip, in The Chess more.”[upper-alpha 4] Later, Bent Larsen, Ljubomir Ljuboje-
Player’s Manual, first published in 1874, wrote, “Of late vić, Lev Polugaevsky, Leonid Stein, Mark Taimanov, and
years ... discoveries have been made which have the ef- Mikhail Tal all made extensive contributions to the theory
fect of considerably strengthening White’s attack, and the and practice of the defence. Through the efforts of world
'Sicilian' is now considered by most modern authorities to champions Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, the Sicil-
be a comparatively weak mode of play.”[18] Freeborough ian Defence became recognised as the defence that of-
and Ranken, in their treatise Chess Openings: Ancient and fered Black the most winning chances against 1.e4. Both
Modern (1889, 1896), wrote that the Sicilian “had at one players favoured sharp, aggressive play and employed the
time the reputation of being the best reply to 1.P-K4, but Sicilian almost exclusively throughout their careers, bur-
this has not been confirmed by popular practice. Several nishing the defence’s present reputation. Today, most
eminent players have, however, held to the opinion that it leading grandmasters include the Sicilian in their open-
is quite trustworthy.”[19][20] ing repertoire. In 1990, the authors of Modern Chess
Openings (13th edition) noted that “in the twentieth cen-
The Sicilian continued to be shunned by most leading
players at the start of the twentieth century, as 1...e5 tury the Sicilian has become the most played and most
analysed opening at both the club and master levels.”[31]
held centre stage. Capablanca, World Champion from
1921 to 1927, famously denounced it as an opening where In 1965, in the tenth edition of that book, grandmaster
Larry Evans observed that, “The Sicilian is Black’s most
“Black’s game is full of holes”.[21] Similarly, James Ma-
son wrote, “Fairly tried and found wanting, the Sicilian dynamic, asymmetrical reply to 1.P-K4. It produces the
psychological and tension factors which denote the best
has now scarcely any standing as a first-class defence.
64 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

in modern play and gives notice of a fierce fight on the space in the centre; the immediate 5...e5?! however is
very first move.”[32] met by 6.Bb5+!, when Black must either play 6...Bd7
or 6...Nbd7. The former allows White to exchange off
Black’s light-squared bishop, after which the d5-square
4.1.3 Open Sicilian: 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 becomes very weak; but the latter allows 7.Nf5, when
Black can only save the d-pawn by playing the awkward
Over 75% of games beginning with 1.e4 c5 continue 7...a6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7. In both cases, White’s game is
with 2.Nf3, when there are three main options for Black: preferable.
2...d6, 2...Nc6, and 2...e6. Lines where White then plays
Thus, by playing 5...a6, Black deprives White of the
3.d4 are collectively known as the Open Sicilian, and re-
check on b5, so that ...e5 might be possible next move.
sult in extremely complex positions. White has a lead in
In general, 5...a6 also prevents White’s knights from us-
development and extra kingside space, which White can
ing the b5-square, and helps Black create queenside play
use to begin a kingside attack. This is counterbalanced
by preparing the ...b5 pawn push. This plan of 5...a6
by Black’s central pawn majority, created by the trade of
followed by ...e5 represents Black’s traditional approach
White’s d-pawn for Black’s c-pawn, and the open c-file,
in the Najdorf Variation. Later, Garry Kasparov also
which Black uses to generate queenside counterplay.
adopted the 5...a6 move order, but with the idea of play-
ing ...e6 rather than ...e5. Kasparov’s point is that the
2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 immediate 5...e6 (the Scheveningen Variation, discussed
below) allows 6.g4, which is White’s most dangerous line
Position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 against the Scheveningen. By playing 5...a6 first, Black
5.Nc3 temporarily prevents White’s g4 thrust and waits to see
what White plays instead. Often, play will eventually
transpose to the Scheveningen Variation.
Black’s most common move after 2.Nf3 is 2...d6. This
prepares ...Nf6 to attack the e-pawn without letting Currently, White’s most popular weapon against the Naj-
White push it to e5. The game usually continues 3.d4 dorf is 6.Be3. This is called the English Attack, because it
cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3. Sometimes played is 3...Nf6 was popularised by English grandmasters Murray Chan-
4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 giving the same result. Black can dler, John Nunn and Nigel Short in the 1980s. White’s
then choose between four major variations: in order of idea is to play f3, Qd2, g4 and 0-0-0 in some order.
decreasing popularity, these are the Najdorf (5...a6), Black can respond with 6...e6, 6...e5 or 6...Ng4; to pre-
Dragon (5...g6), Classical (5...Nc6), and Scheveningen vent ...Ng4, White sometimes starts with 6.f3 instead, but
(5...e6). The Venice Attack (5...e5 6.Bb5+) and Kupre- this allows 6...Qb6! A related attacking idea for White
ichik Variation (5...Bd7) are rarely played. 5...e5 is of- is 6.Be3 e6 7.g4, known as the Hungarian Attack or
ten considered something of an error on Black’s part and Perenyi Attack.
5...Bd7 can transpose to one of the more common varia- Formerly, 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 was the main line of the Naj-
tions, such as the Classical or Dragon, but there are also dorf, when White threatens to attack the pinned knight
a number of independent lines. with 8.e5. Black can simply break the pin with 7...Be7,
There are a few ways for either side to deviate from when White usually plays 8.Qf3 and 9.0-0-0. Some of
the moves given above. After 3...cxd4, White occasion- Black’s alternatives are 7...Qb6, the Poisoned Pawn Vari-
ally plays 4.Qxd4, the Chekhover Variation, intending to ation popularized by Fischer, and 7...b5, the Polugaevsky
meet 4...Nc6 with 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6, when White hopes Variation, which has the tactical point 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5
that their lead in development compensates for Black’s Qc7! 10.exf6 Qe5+ winning the bishop in return for the
bishop pair. Black can avoid this line by playing 3...Nf6, knight.
when 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 returns to main lines. How- White has other choices on the sixth move. 6.Be2 pre-
ever, White has the option of 4.dxc5!?, when Black can pares to castle kingside and is a quieter alternative com-
play either 4...Nxe4 or 4...Qa5+. Another unusual side- pared to 6.Be3 and 6.Bg5. Efim Geller was an early
line is 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3!?, the Prins Variation, proponent of this move, after which Black can stay in
which tries to maintain the option of c4 with a Maróczy “pure” Najdorf territory with 6...e5 or transpose to the
Bind formation. Scheveningen with 6...e6. Other possibilities for White
include 6.f4, 6.Bc4 (the Fischer–Sozin Attack), 6.g3, and
6.h3, (the Adams Attack, named after Weaver Adams),
Najdorf Variation: 5...a6 Najdorf Variation: 1.e4
which was used several times by Bobby Fischer.
c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6
Main article: Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation
Dragon Variation: 5...g6 Dragon Variation: 1.e4 c5
The Najdorf Variation is Black’s most popular sys- 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
tem in the Sicilian Defence. Najdorf’s intention with Main article: Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation
5...a6 was to prepare ...e5 on the next move to gain
4.1. SICILIAN DEFENCE 65

In the Dragon Variation, Black fianchettoes a Bishop 7.Nf3 usually continues ...h6 8.O-O Be7 9.Re1; 7.Nb3
on the h8–a1 diagonal. It was named by Fyodor Dus- is the dynamic and not very good Boleslavsky Variation
Chotimirsky in 1901, who noticed a resemblance be- (ECO code B59). Other moves include 6.Be3, 6.f3, and
tween Black’s kingside pawn structure (pawns on d6, 6.g3.
e7, f7, g6 and h7) and the stars of the Draco constel-
lation.[33] White’s most dangerous try against the Dragon
is the Yugoslav Attack, characterised by 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Scheveningen Variation: 5...e6 Scheveningen Vari-
0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6, when both 9.0-0-0 and 9.Bc4 may be ation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6
played. This variation leads to extremely sharp play and Main article: Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation
is ferociously complicated, since the players castle on
opposite wings and the game becomes a race between In the Scheveningen Variation, Black is content with a
White’s kingside attack and Black’s queenside counter- “small centre” (pawns on d6 and e6, rather than e5) and
attack. White’s main alternatives to the Yugoslav Attack prepares to castle kingside. In view of this, Paul Keres
are 6.Be2, the Classical Variation, and 6.f4, the Levenfish
introduced 6.g4, the Keres Attack, in 1943. White in-
Attack. tends to drive away the black knight with g5. If Black
prevents this with 6...h6, which is the most common an-
swer, White has gained kingside space and discouraged
Classical Variation: 5...Nc6 Classical Variation: Black from castling in that area, and may later play Bg2.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 If the complications after 6.g4 are not to White’s taste, a
major alternative is 6.Be2, a typical line being 6...a6 (this
This variation can arise from two different move orders: position can be reached from the Najdorf via 5...a6 6.Be2
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6, e6) 7.0-0 Be7 8.f4 0-0. 6.Be3 and 6.f4 are also common.
or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 While theory indicates that Black can hold the balance in
d6. Black simply brings their knight to its most natural the Keres Attack, players today often prefer to avoid it
square, and defers, for the moment, the development of by playing 5...a6 first, an idea popularized by Kasparov.
their king’s bishop. However, if White is determined to play the g4 thrust,
White’s most common reply is 6.Bg5, the Richter– they can prepare it by responding to 5...a6 with 6.h3 (as
Rauzer Attack (ECO codes B60 et seq). The move Fischer sometimes played) or 6.Rg1.
6.Bg5 was Kurt Richter's invention, threatening to dou-
ble Black’s pawns after Bxf6 and forestalling the Dragon
by rendering 6...g6 unplayable. After 6...e6, Vsevolod 2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
Rauzer introduced the modern plan of Qd2 and 0-0-0 in
the 1930s. White’s pressure on the d6-pawn often com- Position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
pels Black to respond to Bxf6 with ...gxf6, rather than
recapturing with a piece (e.g. the queen on d8) that also 2...Nc6 is a natural developing move, and also prepares
has to defend the d-pawn. This weakens their kingside ...Nf6 (like 2...d6, Black stops White from replying e5).
pawn structure, in return for which Black gains the two After 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black’s most common move is
bishops, plus a central pawn majority, though these assets 4...Nf6. Other important moves are 4...e6 (transposing to
are difficult to exploit. the Taimanov Variation), 4...g6 (the Accelerated Dragon)
Another variation is 6.Bc4, called “Sozin” (ECO code and 4...e5 (the Kalashnikov Variation). Less common
B57). It brings the bishop to an aggressive square. Black choices include 4...Qc7, which may later transpose to the
usually plays 6...e6 to limit the range of White’s bishop, Taimanov Variation, 4...Qb6, the Grivas Variation, and
but White can eventually put pressure on the e6-pawn by 4...d6.
pushing their f-pawn to f5. White can either castle king- After 4...Nf6, White usually replies 5.Nc3. Black can
side with 7.Bb3 a6 8.0-0 (the Fischer–Sozin Attack, play 5...d6, transposing to the Classical Variation; 5...e5,
named after Bobby Fischer and Russian master Veniamin the Sveshnikov Variation; or 5...e6, transposing to the
Sozin, who originated it in the 1930s), or queenside with Four Knights Variation.
7.Be3 Be7 (or 7...a6) 8.Qe2 and 9.0-0-0 (the Velimirović
Attack). Instead of 6...e6, Black can also try Benko’s
move 6...Qb6, which forces White to make a decision Sveshnikov Variation: 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 Sveshnikov
over the d4-knight. This typically leads into more posi- Variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
tional lines than the razor-sharp, highly theoretical Sozin 5.Nc3 e5
and Velimirovic variations.
6.Be2 is the “classical” line (ECO code B58). Black The Sveshnikov Variation was pioneered by Evgeny
can choose among 6...e5; 6...e6, transposing to the Sveshnikov and Gennadi Timoshchenko in the 1970s.
Scheveningen Variation; and 6...g6, transposing to the Before their efforts, the variation was called the Lasker–
Classical Variation of the Dragon. With move ...e5, Pelikan Variation. Emanuel Lasker played it once in his
66
world championship match against Carl Schlechter, and
Jorge Pelikan played it a few times in the 1950s, but
Sveshnikov’s treatment of the variation was the key to its
revitalization. The move 5...e5 seems anti-positional as
it leaves black with a backwards d-pawn and a weakness
on d5. Also, black would have to accept the doubled f-
pawns in the main line of the opening. The opening was
popularised when Sveshnikov saw its dynamic potential
for Black in the 1970s and 80s. Today, it is extremely
popular among grandmasters and amateurs alike. Though
some lines still give Black trouble, it has been established
as a first-rate defence. The main line after 5...e5 runs as
follows:
6. Ndb5
The theoretically critical move, threatening
Nd6+. All other moves are considered to allow
Black easy equality. 6.Nxc6 is usually met by
6...bxc6, when Black’s extra pawn in the cen-
tre gives good play; alternatively, even 6...dxc6
7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 is sufficient for equality.[34]
6.Nb3 and 6.Nf3 can be well met by 6...Bb4,
threatening to win White’s pawn on e4.[35]
6.Nf5 allows 6...d5! 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6
9.Qf3 Qd7.[36] 6.Nde2 can be met by either
6...Bc5 or 6...Bb4.[37]
6...d6
Black does not allow 7.Nd6+ Bxd6 8.Qxd6,
when White’s pair of bishops give them the ad-
vantage.
7. Bg5
White gets ready to eliminate the knight on f6,
further weakening Black’s control over the d5-
square. A less common alternative is 7.Nd5
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 (or 8...Ne7), when White
will try to exploit their queenside pawn major-
ity, while Black will seek counterplay on the
kingside.
7...a6
Black forces White’s knight back to a3.
8. Na3
The immediate 8.Bxf6 forces 8...gxf6, when
after 9.Na3, Black can transpose into the main
line with 9...b5 or deviate with 9...f5!?
8...b5!
CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE
8...b5 was Sveshnikov’s innovation, control-
ling c4 and threatening ...b4 forking White’s
knights. Previously, Black played 8...Be6 (the
Bird Variation), which allowed the a3-knight to
return to life with 9.Nc4. The entire variation
up to 8...b5 is referred to as the Chelyabinsk
Variation. It can also be reached from the al-
ternate move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5
8.Bg5 a6 9.Na3 b5, which is one move longer.
(That alternative move order gives White other
alternatives, including 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5
8.Ne4, intending c4, and the gambit 6.Be2 Bb4
7.0-0!?, allowing ...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxe4.) The
move numbers in the following discussion are
based on the move order given in bold.
Chelyabinsk Variation: 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5
The Sveshnikov Variation has become very popular
in master level chess. Black’s ...e5 push seems anti-
positional: it has made the d6-pawn backward and the d5-
square weak. However, in return, Black gets a foothold
in the centre and gains time on White’s knight, which has
been driven to the edge of the board on a3. Top play-
ers who have used this variation include Vladimir Kram-
nik, Veselin Topalov, Teimour Radjabov, Boris Gelfand,
Michael Adams and Alexander Khalifman, among many
others.
In the diagrammed position after 8...b5, White usually
parries the threat of ...b4 by playing 9.Bxf6 or 9.Nd5.
After 9.Bxf6, 9...Qxf6?! 10.Nd5 Qd8 fails to 11.c4
b4 (11...bxc4 12.Nxc4 is good for White, who threat-
ens 13.Qa4) 12.Qa4 Bd7 13.Nb5! axb5 14.Qxa8 Qxa8
15.Nc7+ Kd8 16.Nxa8 and the knight escapes via b6.
Thus 9...gxf6 is forced, and White continues 10.Nd5.
White’s powerful knight on d5 and Black’s shattered king-
side pawn structure are compensated by Black’s bishop
pair and White’s offside knight on a3. Also, Black has the
plan of playing 10...f5, followed by ...fxe4 and ...f5 with
the second f-pawn, which would give them good control
of the centre. An alternative plan is to play 10...Bg7 fol-
lowed by ...Ne7 to immediately trade off White’s power-
ful knight; this line is known as the Novosibirsk Variation.
Instead of 9.Bxf6, White can also play 9.Nd5, which usu-
ally leads to quieter play. White decides not to double
Black’s f-pawns and the game often continues 9...Be7
10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3. This allows White to maintain their
knight on d5 by trading off Black’s knight on f6, and pre-
pares to bring the knight on a3 back into play with the
manoeuvre Na3–c2–e3. Another line is 10.Nxe7 Nxe7!
(fighting for control of d5 and not fearing the doubled
pawns) 11.Bxf6 gxf6. However, a recent development
in the Sveshnikov has been 11.c4 (instead of c3), which
often leads to positions where white is pressing for the
win at no risk. A quick draw is possible after 9.Nd5
Qa5+!? 10.Bd2 (in order to prevent 10...Nxe4) 10...Qd8
4.1. SICILIAN DEFENCE 67

11.Bg5 Qa5+ etc. In order to avoid this, White can play the knight in favour of playing ...Be7–g5 or a quick ...f5.
11.Nxf6+ or 11.c4. On the other hand, White has the option of 6.c4, which
solidifies their grip on d5 and clamps down on ...b5, but
leaves the d4-square slightly weak.
Accelerated Dragon: 4...g6 Accelerated Dragon:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6
Main article: Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4

Black’s move 2...e6 gives priority to developing the dark-

Like the standard Dragon Variation, Black develops the
squared bishop. After 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black has
bishop to g7 in the Accelerated Dragon. The difference is
three main moves: 4...Nc6 (the Taimanov Variation),
that Black avoids playing ...d7–d6, so that they can later
4...a6 (the Kan Variation) and 4...Nf6. After 4...Nf6
play ...d7–d5 in one move if possible. For example, if
5.Nc3 (not 5.e5? Qa5+), Black can transpose to the
White tries to play in the style of the Yugoslav Attack with
Scheveningen Variation with 5...d6, play 5...Nc6, the
5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2, 8...d5! equalises
Four Knights Variation or 5...Bb4, the Pin Variation.
immediately. When White does play 5.Nc3, it is usually
with the idea of continuing 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 (forestalling any tricks involving ...Nxe4 and ...d5), Taimanov Variation: 4...Nc6 Taimanov Variation:
followed by kingside castling. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6
The critical test of Black’s move order is 5.c4, the
Maróczy Bind. White hopes to cramp Black’s position by Named after Mark Taimanov, the Taimanov Variation
impeding the ...d7–d5 and ...b7–b5 pawn thrusts. Gener- can be reached through 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
ally, this line is less tactical than many of the other Si- 4.Nxd4 Nc6 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
cilian variations, and play involves much strategic ma- e6. Black develops the knight to a natural square and
neuvering on both sides. After 5.c4, the main line runs keeps his options open regarding the placement of his
5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 and now 7...0-0 or 7...Ng4 is other pieces. One of the ideas of this system is to develop
most frequently played. the king’s bishop to b4 or c5. White can prevent this by
5.Nb5 d6, when 6.c4 leads to a version of the Maróczy
Bind favoured by Karpov. The resulting position after
Kalashnikov Variation: 4...e5 5. Nb5 d6 Kalash- 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 b6 is a type of Hedgehog.
nikov Variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
e5 5.Nb5 d6 The Kasparov Gambit 8...d5 was played twice in the
World Chess Championship 1985, but virtually disap-
peared from master praxis after the game Karpov–van
The Kalashnikov Variation (ECO code B32)[38] is a close der Wiel, Brussels (SWIFT) 1986.
relative of the Sveshnikov Variation, and is sometimes
known as the Neo-Sveshnikov. The move 4...e5 has had 5.Nc3 is more common nowadays than 5.Nb5, when
a long history; Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais 5...d6 normally transposes to the Scheveningen Variation
used it in his matches against Alexander McDonnell in and 5...Nf6 is the Four Knights Variation (see below).
1834, and it was also popular for a short time in the 1940s. Independent moves for Black are 5...Qc7 and 5...a6, with
These earlier games focused on the Löwenthal Varia- the former being the more usual move order seen in re-
tion (similar to the Kalashnikov but the reply to 5.Nb5 is cent years, as after 5...a6, the continuation 6.Nxc6 bxc6
5...a6) with 4...e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Qf6, 7.Bd3, despite its apparent simplicity, has given Black
where Black gives up the two bishops to achieve a lead difficulties in reaching equality. Taimanov’s idea was
in development. However, the move fell out of use once to play 5...a6 (preventing Nb5) followed by ...Nge7 and
it was determined that White kept the advantage in these ...Nxd4.
lines.
Only in the late 1980s did Black players revive 4...e5 with Kan (Paulsen) Variation: 4...a6 Kan Variation: 1.e4
the intention of meeting 5.Nb5 with 5...d6: this is the c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6
Kalashnikov Variation. The ideas in this line are similar
to those in the Sveshnikov – Black accepts a backward
pawn on d6 and weakens the d5-square but gains time by Named after Ilya Kan. By playing 4...a6, Black prevents
chasing the knight. The difference between the two varia- Nb5 and prepares an eventual ...b5 advance.
tions is that Black has not developed their knight to f6 and White’s second most popular reply is 5.Nc3, when
White has not brought their knight out to c3, so both play- Black’s development of the kingside knight often takes
ers have extra options. Black may forego ...Nf6 in favour focus, since playing ...Nf6 can be met with e5 which both
of ...Ne7, e.g. after 6.N1c3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nge7, creates a Black weakness on the d6-square and causes the
which avoids White’s plan of Bg5 and Bxf6 to inflict dou- Black knight a disadvantageous move. So Black normally
bled f-pawns on Black. Or, Black can delay bringing out plays a move to control the e5-square and prevent the
68 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

pawn from advancing. The main Kan move is 5...Qc7, 4.1.4 2.Nf3 without 3.d4: White’s third
although 5...Nc6 transposing into a Taimanov or 5...d6 move alternatives
transposing into a Scheveningen can occur. An alterna-
tive idea is the immediate 5...b5 to create pressure from White can play 2.Nf3 without intending to follow up with
the queenside with the idea of playing ...b4 attacking the 3.d4. The systems given below are usually classified along
c3-knight, or Bb7 to build pressure along the long white- with White’s second move alternatives as Anti-Sicilians.
squared diagonal. White generally answers with 6. Bd3,
supporting the e4 pawn.
The most popular fifth move for White is 5.Bd3, when af-
2...d6 without 3.d4
ter 5...Bc5 6.Nb3 Black can either retreat 6...Be7 where
7.Qg4 makes Black’s kingside problematic, or 6...Ba7.
Also possible is 5.c4 to create a Maróczy bind setup. Canal-Sokolsky Attack: 3.Bb5+ Moscow Variation
or the Canal–Sokolsky Attack: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+

Four Knights Variation: 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 Four After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6, White’s most important alterna-
Knights Variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 tive to 3.d4 is 3.Bb5+, known as the Moscow Variation
Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 or the Canal–Sokolsky Attack. Grandmasters some-
times choose this variation when they wish to avoid the-
The Four Knights Variation is mainly used as a way of ory; for instance, it was played by Garry Kasparov in the
getting into the main line Sveshnikov Variation, reached online game Kasparov–The World. Experts in this line
after 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 a6 9.Na3 b5. The point include GMs Sergei Rublevsky and Tomáš Oral. Black
of this move order is to avoid lines such as the Rossolimo can block the check with 3...Bd7, 3...Nc6 or 3...Nd7.
Variation (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5), or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 The position after 3...Nc6 can also be reached via the
Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5, Rossolimo Variation after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6.
which are possible in the standard Sveshnikov move or- Most common is 3...Bd7, when after 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7,
der. On the other hand, in the Four Knights move order, White can either play 5.0-0 followed by c3 and d4, or
White acquires the extra option of 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 5.c4 in the style of the Maróczy Bind.
8.Ne4, so White is not obliged to enter the Sveshnikov. The World Team Variation of the Canal–Sokolsky At-
If Black is not aiming for the Sveshnikov, the main alter- tack continues with 5.c4 Nc6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.0-0 g6 8.d4
native is to play 6...Bb4 in reply to 6.Ndb5. Then 7.a3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Bg7 10.Nde2 Qe6, forking White’s pawns
Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 leads to a position where on e4 and c4. This move was suggested by Irina Krush,
Black has given up the two bishops but has active pieces and played in the Kasparov–The World, 1999 online
and the possibility of playing ...d5–d4. game. Kasparov noted its novelty.[39]

Pin Variation: 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 Pin Variation:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 Others Another possibility for White is 3.c3, intending
to establish a pawn centre with d4 next move. The most
frequent continuation is 3...Nf6 4.Be2, when 4...Nxe4??
The Pin Variation (also called the Sicilian Counter- loses to 5.Qa4+. White sometimes plays 3.Nc3, which
Attack) is considered theoretically suspect, but if White usually transposes to the Open Sicilian after 3...Nf6 4.d4.
is unprepared the tactics can be difficult to calculate at
the board. After 6.e5! (6.Bd3 is less challenging) Black
has
2...Nc6 without 3.d4
• (a) 6...Ne4?! 7.Qg4! Nxc3 8.Qxg7 Rf8 9.a3 Nb5+
10.axb4 Nxd4 11.Bg5 Qb6 12.Bh6 Qxb4+ 13.c3 Nimzovich-Rossolimo Attack: 3.Bb5 Rossolimo
Nf5 14.cxb4 Nxg7 15.Bxg7 with a clear advantage Variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
to White, Szabo-Mikenas, Kemeri 1939
The Rossolimo Variation, 3.Bb5, is a well-respected al-
• (b) 6...Nd5 7.Bd2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Be7 9.Qg4 and ternative to 3.d4. It is named after Nicolas Rossolimo
Black must either weaken his king’s side with 9...g6 and is related to the Moscow Variation. White’s usual
or give up the exchange after 9...0-0 10.Bh6 g6. intention is to play Bxc6, giving Black doubled pawns.
White need not take the exchange, and attacking Black’s major responses are 3...g6 preparing ...Bg7,
with 11.h4 may in fact be stronger. 3...d6 preparing ...Bd7 (a hybrid line that also arises from
the Moscow Variation after 2...d6 3.Bb5+ Nc6), and
Also intriguing is 6. Nb5!, with 6...Nxe4?! met with 7. 3...e6 preparing 4...Nge7. Sergei Rublevsky and Tomáš
Qg4, with strong compensation for the pawn. Oral both play this line as well as the Moscow Variation.
4.1. SICILIAN DEFENCE 69

Others 3.Nc3 is a common transpositional device for possibly ...d5. However, after 3.c3 or 3.c4 it is unclear
White, who can play 4.d4 or 4.Bb5 next move depend- how 2...a6 has improved Black’s position.
ing on Black’s response. Black sometimes plays 3...e5 to
avoid both moves; then 4.Bc4 is considered White’s best
move. 3.c3 transposes to lines of the Alapin Variation 2...Nf6: Nimzovich-Rubinstein Variation
after 3...Nf6 or 3...d5.
2...Nf6 is the Nimzowitsch Variation. It bears some
similarity to Alekhine’s Defence.[41] White’s strongest re-
2...e6 without 3.d4 ply is to chase the knight by 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3 and now (a)
4...Nxc3 5.dxc3, when 5...b6?, as Nimzowitsch played
[42]
White sometimes plays 3.Nc3 as a waiting move, though and recommended, loses to 6.e6! f6 7.Ne5! or (b)
it has little independent significance. With 3.d3, White 4...e6 (the main line) 5.Nxd5 exd5 6.d4 Nc6 7.dxc5 Bxc5
[43]
plans to develop in King’s Indian Attack style with g3 8.Qxd5 Qb6 (8...d6 9.exd6 Qb6 is also played) 9.Bc4!
and Bg2; this line was used by Fischer to crush Oscar Bxf2+ 10.Ke2 0-0 11.Rf1 Bc5 12.Ng5 Nd4+ 13.Kd1
[44]
Panno in a famous game (Fischer–Panno, Buenos Aires with sharp play favoring White.
1970). 3.c3 will transpose to lines of the Alapin Varia-
tion after 3...Nf6, or the French Defence after 3...d5 4.e5 Others
Nc6 5.d4, though 4...d4 is stronger, as after 5.cxd4 cxd4
6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Qxd4 Bxf3 is a Other moves include:
strong pawn sacrifice, giving Black excellent compensa-
tion. 3.b3, intending Bb2, is a rare independent try, oc- • 2...b6 is the Katalymov Variation, after the
casionally essayed by Heikki Westerinen in the 1970s. Kazakh/Russian master Boris Katalymov. It is gen-
erally considered better for White, though it has fre-
3.Bd3 quently been played by the French GM Christian
Bauer. Other GMs, including Gata Kamsky, have
In Foxy Openings Vol. 30, IM Danny Kopec suggests the occasionally used it as a surprise weapon.
move 3.Bd3 against any of Black’s common responses, in- • 2...Qc7 is the Quinteros Variation. It will fre-
tending to follow up with c3 and Bc2. This line is known quently transpose into a standard line such as the
as "The Kopec System.”[40] Taimanov Variation or Paulsen Variation, or else
White can play 3.c3 in the style of the Alapin Varia-
tion, where Black’s queen may not be so well placed
4.1.5 2.Nf3: Black’s second move alterna- on c7.
tives

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3, Black has some less commonly 4.1.6 Closed Sicilian
played options apart from 2...d6, 2...Nc6 and 2...e6.
Closed Sicilian (Main line): 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6
2...g6: Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
2.Nc3 is White’s second most common move responding
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.c4 cxd4
to 1.e4 c5. Black’s options are similar to those for 2.Nf3,
the most common being ...Nc6, along with ...e6 and ...d6,
After 2...g6, White commonly plays 3.d4. Other moves and less commonly ...a6 and ...g6. In all cases, White can
are 3.c3 and 3.c4. Most common here is 3...cxd4 but then play 3.Nf3, as if White had played 2.Nf3 then 3.Nc3
3...Bg7 is also played. In case of 3...cxd4 White may play (e.g. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3, B30).
4.Nxd4. Then 4...Nc6 may be played for a 2...Nc6 line.
For the most part, other moves are the Closed Sicilian.
The other main move for Black is 4...Bg7. This will have
Possible moves are 3.g3 and 3.f4 in general, also 3.Nge2,
either 5.c4 or 5.Nc3. For either 3.c3 or 3.c4, then Black
and less commonly 3.d3 and 3.Bc4. Some lines may
may play 3...Bg7. Then 4.d4 with 3.c4 transposes to the
transpose to the Open Sicilian, but there are many that
3.d4 line. Or 4.d4 with 3.c3 transposes to an Alapin (or
do not.
Accelerated Dragon) line.
Also of some interest is 3.Bb5 to ...Nc6.

2...a6: O'Kelly Variation A typical line is 2...Nc6 3.g3 (ECO code B24). Also
2...Nc6 3.f4 is the Closed Sicilian, Grand Prix Attack
2...a6 is the O'Kelly Variation. The idea is that 3.d4 (part of B23).
runs into 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 when 6.Nb5 is White can also keep their options open with 3.Nge2.
prevented, and Black will equalize by playing 6...Bb4 and Andrew Soltis has dubbed that the "Chameleon System”,
70
since White maintains the option of playing a Closed Si-
cilian with 4.g3 or transposing to a standard Open Sicilian
with 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4. Two drawbacks are that (a) the
Closed Sicilian lines with an early Nge2 are not very chal-
lenging for Black, and (b) if Black plays 2...Nc6 3.Nge2
g6, 4.d4 reaches an Accelerated Dragon where White has
lost the option of playing c4, the Maróczy Bind, often
considered White’s best line.[45] In view of possible trans-
positions to the main Sicilian variations, Black’s reply to
2.Nc3 will depend on what they play in the Open Sicilian.
2...Nc6 is the most common choice, but 2...e6 and 2...d6
are often played. The Main line of the Closed Sicilian is
2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 (diagram), when
White’s main options are 6.Be3 followed by Qd2 and pos-
sibly 0-0-0, and 6.f4 followed by Nf3 and 0-0.
4.1.7 White’s second move alternatives
Other moves besides 2.Nf3 and 2.Nc3 are popular.
Alapin Variation: 2.c3
2.c3 is the Alapin Variation or c3 Sicilian. Origi-
nally championed by Semyon Alapin at the end of the
19th century, it was revived in the late 1960s by Evgeny
Sveshnikov and Evgeny Vasiukov. Nowadays its strongest
practitioners include grandmasters Sergei Tiviakov and
Eduardas Rozentalis. White aims to set up a classical
pawn centre with 3.d4, so Black should counter imme-
diately in the centre by 2...Nf6 or 2...d5. The line 2...Nf6
3.e5 Nd5 resembles Alekhine’s Defence, but the inclu-
sion of the moves c3 and ...c5 is definitely in Black’s
favour. Now White can play 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3, when
Black has a choice between 5...e6 and 5...Nc6. Another
idea for White is 5.Bc4, which is met by 5...Qc7. 2...d5
3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 is the other main line, when
Black’s main options are 5...e6 and 5...Bg4. In this line,
White usually ends up with an isolated queen’s pawn af-
ter pawns are exchanged on d4. A rarer option on Black’s
second move is 2...e6, with the aim of transposing to the
Advance Variation of the French Defence after 3.d4 d5
4.e5.
Grand Prix Attack: 2.f4
2.f4 is the Grand Prix Attack or McDonnell Attack:
the latter name stems from the 14th match game played
in London in 1834 between Alexander McDonnell and
Charles Louis Mahé de La Bourdonnais, won by Black.
According to Jeremy Silman and others, Black’s best re-
ply is 2...d5 3.exd5 Nf6!, the Tal Gambit, which has
caused the immediate 2.f4 to decline in popularity.[46]
White may decline the gambit with 3.Nc3, called the
“Toilet Variation”, so named after its reputed place of
invention.[47] A less common option is 2...e6, as La Bour-
donnais played against McDonnell. Players usually enter
CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE
the Grand Prix Attack nowadays by playing 2.Nc3 first
before continuing 3.f4. The modern main line runs 2.Nc3
Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7. Here White can play the posi-
tional 5.Bb5, threatening to double Black’s pawns with
Bxc6, or the more aggressive 5.Bc4, aiming for a king-
side attack.
Smith-Morra Gambit: 2.d4
2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 is the Smith–Morra Gambit. Declining
it by either 3...Nf6 or 3...d5, transposing to the c3 line, is
possible, but accepting it by 3...dxc3 is critical.[48] After
4.Nxc3, White is considered not to have enough compen-
sation for the pawn;[49][50][51][52] however, it can be dan-
gerous for Black if he is unprepared, as there are many
pitfalls for the unwary.[53]
Others
Other moves include:
• 2.Ne2 is the Keres Variation, a favourite of Paul
Keres, and has similar ideas to the Chameleon Sys-
tem discussed under 2.Nc3 – White can follow up
with 3.d4 with an Open Sicilian, 3.g3 with a Closed
Sicilian, or 3.Nbc3, continuing to defer the choice
between the two.
• 2.d3 signals White’s intention to develop along
King’s Indian Attack lines, and usually transposes to
the Closed Sicilian.
• 2.b3 followed by 3.Bb2 is the Snyder Variation,
named for USCF master Robert M. Snyder.[54] It
has been used occasionally by Nigel Short and is a
favourite of Georgian GM Tamaz Gelashvili.
• 2.g3 is the Steinitz Variation, which was some-
times also played by Taimanov, and can transpose to
the Closed Sicilian but offers other options such as
2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5, with Black’s Queen threatening
to capture White’s exposed Rook, and an incipient
central buildup with c3 and d4 for White.
• 2.c4 occasionally leads to positions that resemble
lines in the English Opening. Palliser and Keres
recommend avoiding mainline English theory with
2...Nc6 3.Nc3 e5!, which prevents white from play-
ing d4 [55]
• 2.b4 is the Wing Gambit. White’s idea is 2. b4
cxb4 3. a3, hoping to deflect Black’s c-pawn, then
dominate the center with an early d4. However,
Black can gain an advantage with accurate play. The
Wing Gambit is thus generally considered too reck-
less. GM Joe Gallagher calls it “a forgotten relic,
hardly having set foot in a tournament hall since
the days of Frank Marshall and Rudolph Spielmann.
White sacrifices a pawn for ... well, not a lot.”[56]
4.1. SICILIAN DEFENCE
• 2.a3 is similar to the Wing Gambit, the idea being
to play 3.b4 next move.
• 2.a4 is usually followed up with 3.f4, with play sim-
ilar to a Grand Prix Attack. Simon Williams once
defeated Jovica Radovanovic with the line.[57]
• 2.e5, which gains space and prevents Black play-
ing Nf6. White often support the e5 pawn with
3.f4 or 3.Nf3. The drawback of 2.e5 is that no ad-
ditional pressure is brought to the center, allowing
Black various options. Wilhelm Steinitz played 2.e5
at least three times in tournament play, defeating
Szymon Winawer, Max Weiss, and Celso Golmayo
Zúpide.[58]
• 2.Na3 is an eccentric move recently brought into
prominence by GM Vadim Zvjaginsev at the 2005
Russian Chess Championship Superfinal. He used
it thrice during the tournament, drawing twice and
beating Alexander Khalifman.
• 2.Bc4 is the Bowlder Attack, and though once
played at the highest level, is popular today only
among club players or beginners who are unfamiliar
with the Sicilian and are looking either to attack the
weak f7 pawn or to prepare for a quick kingside cas- 4.1.9 See also
tle. However, after a move such as 2...e6, Black will
soon play ...d5 and open up the centre while gaining
time by attacking the bishop. Anderssen–Wyvill,
London 1851 continued 2..e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.a4 Nc6
5.d3 g6 6.Nge2 Bg7 7.0-0 Nge7 8.f4 0-0 9.Bd2 d5
10.Bb3 Nd4 11.Nxd4, and now Soltis recommends 4.1.10 References
11...cxd4! 12.Ne2 Bd7![59]
Notes
• 2.Qh5, threatening the c-pawn as in the Wayward
Queen Attack, was played twice in 2005 by Hikaru
[1] Henry Bird, writing in 1883, summarized the fluctuations
Nakamura, but the move is considered dubious.
Simply 2...Nf6 gives Black a comfortable position
after 3.Qxc5 Nxe4, while 3.Qh4 displaces the queen
and loses time. Nakamura lost in 23 moves to
Andrei Volokitin in 2005, and Neil McDonald criti-
cised the opening experiment as “rather foolish”.[60]
4.1.8 ECO codes
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings classifies the Si-
cilian Defence under the codes B20 through B99, giving
it more codes than any other opening. In general these
guidelines apply:
• Codes B20 through B29 cover lines after 1.e4 c5
where White does not play 2.Nf3, and lines where
White plays 2.Nf3 and Black responds with a move
other than 2...d6, 2...Nc6 or 2...e6.
• Codes B30 through B39 cover the lines beginning
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 that do not transpose into lines
that can also begin with 2...d6. The most important
71
variations included here are the Rossolimo, Kalash-
nikov, Sveshnikov and Accelerated Dragon.
• Codes B40 through B49 cover the lines beginning
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6, most importantly the Taimanov
and Kan variations.
• Codes B50 through B59 cover the lines after 1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 d6 not covered in codes B60–B99. This
includes the Moscow Variation (3.Bb5+), 3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4, and lines in the Classical Variation except
for the Richter–Rauzer Attack, including the Sozin
Attack and the Boleslavsky Variation.
• Codes B60 through B69 cover the Richter–Rauzer
Attack of the Classical Variation.
• Codes B70 through B79 cover the normal (unaccel-
erated) Dragon Variation.
• Codes B80 through B89 cover the Scheveningen
Variation.
• Codes B90 through B99 cover the Najdorf Varia-
tion.
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
in the Sicilian’s reputation thus:
The Sicilian ... has probably undergone
more vicissitudes in regard to its estimation
and appreciation than any other form of de-
fence. In 1851, when the Great Exhibition
London Tournament was commenced, it was
entirely out of favor, but its successful adop-
tion on so many occasions by Anderssen, the
first prize winner, entirely restored it to con-
fidence. Its rejection by Morphy in 1857–8,
and by Steinitz in 1862, caused it again to
lapse in consideration as not being a perfectly
valid and reliable defence. Its fortunes have
ever since continued in an unsettled state.
Staunton (three weeks before his death), ...
pronounced it to be quite trustworthy, and on
the same date Lowenthal expressed a similar
opinion. Baron Kolisch ... concurs in these
views.
J.I. Minchin (editor) (1973). Games Played in the Lon-
don International Chess Tournament 1883 (reprint ed.).
British Chess Magazine. pp. 286–87. SBN 90084608-
9.
72
[2] “Steinitz, throughout his life, had a certain dislike of
the Sicilian. He never ceased to write that he preferred
1...e5 and the majority of players followed his exam-
ple.” Polugaevsky, Lev; Jeroen Piket; Christophe Guéneau
(1995). Sicilian Love: Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tourna-
ment, Bueno Aires 1994. New in Chess. p. 65. ISBN
90-71689-99-9.
[3] Griffith, R.C.; J. H. White (1925). Modern Chess Open-
ings. Leeds: Whitehead & Miller. p. 191. Twelve years
earlier, in the second edition, the authors had written, “For
many years, the Sicilian has enjoyed a fair, though fluctu-
ating amount of favour for match play. While it is not
analytically so sound as the French, it affords greater op-
portunity for counter attack and less chance of an early
draw.” Griffith, R.C.; J. H. White (1913). Modern Chess
Openings. London: Longmans, Green and Co. p. 164.
[4] Fine, Reuben (1965). Great Moments in Modern Chess.
New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-21449-4.
(described as “an unabriged and unaltered republication”
of McKay, David (1948). The World’s a Chessboard. p.
212..
Citations
[1] Rowson, Jonathan (2005). Chess for Zebras: Thinking
Differently About Black and White. Gambit Publications.
p. 243. ISBN 1-901983-85-4.
[2] Sosonko, Gennady; Paul van der Sterren (2000). New In
Chess Yearbook 55. Interchess BV. p. 227. ISBN 90-
5691-069-8.
[3] Watson, John (October 2006). Mastering the Chess Open-
ings: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Modern Chess Open-
ings, Volume 1. Gambit Publications. p. 175. ISBN 1-
904600-60-3.
[4] John Emms, Starting Out: The Sicilian, 2nd ed., p. 5
[5] Nunn, John (February 2001). Understanding Chess Move
by Move. Gambit Publications. p. 57. ISBN 1-901983-
41-2.
[6] Rowson, Jonathan (2005). Chess for Zebras: Thinking
Differently About Black and White. Gambit Publications.
p. 243. ISBN 1-901983-85-4.
[7] De Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
15. Random House Puzzles & Games. p. 244. ISBN
0-8129-3084-3.
[8] Ristoja, Thomas; Aulikki Ristoja (1995). Perusteet.
Shakki (in Finnish). WSOY. p. 63. ISBN 951-0-20505-
2.
[9] “Chess and Chess Players of the Renaissance”. Retrieved
2008-01-19.
[10] Polugaevsky, Lev; Jeroen Piket; Christophe Guéneau
(1995). Sicilian Love: Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tourna-
ment, Bueno Aires 1994. New in Chess. p. 50. ISBN
90-71689-99-9.
CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE
[11] Philidor, François-André Danican (2005). Analysis of the
Game of Chess (1777). Hardinge Simpole Ltd. pp. 200–
01. ISBN 1-84382-161-3.
[12] Polugaevsky, Lev; Jeroen Piket; Christophe Guéneau
(1995). Sicilian Love: Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tourna-
ment, Bueno Aires 1994. New in Chess. p. 53. ISBN
90-71689-99-9.
[13] Korn, Walter; John W. Collins (1957). Modern Chess
Openings (9th ed.). Pitman. p. 113. ASIN
B0007E54DW. ISBN 0-7134-8656-2.
[14] Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player’s Handbook
(2nd ed.). Henry G. Bohn. p. 371. ISBN 1-84382-088-9.
Modern players would consider the notion that the Sicilian
“prevents every attack” naive.
[15] Shibut, Macon (2004). Paul Morphy and the Evolution of
Chess Theory. Dover. p. 42. ISBN 0-486-43574-1.
[16] J.I. Minchin (editor) (1973). Games Played in the Lon-
don International Chess Tournament 1883 (reprint ed.).
British Chess Magazine. pp. 286–87. SBN 90084608-
9. Remarks of Henry Bird, quoted above.
[17] Polugaevsky, Lev; Jeroen Piket; Christophe Gueneau
(1995). Sicilian Love: Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tourna-
ment, Bueno Aires 1994. New in Chess. p. 64. ISBN
90-71689-99-9.
[18] Gossip, G. H. D.; Lipschütz, S. (1902). The Chess-
Player’s Manual. David McKay. p. 799.
[19] Freeborough, E.; Rev. C. E. Ranken (1889). Chess Open-
ings: Ancient and Modern (1st ed.). Trübner and Co., Ltd.
p. 239. ISBN 0-88254-179-X.
[20] Freeborough, E.; Rev. C. E. Ranken (1896). Chess Open-
ings: Ancient and Modern (3rd ed.). Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner and Co., Ltd. p. 248. ISBN 0-88254-179-X.
[21] “Capablanca on the Sicilian Defence”. Retrieved 2008-
01-19.
[22] Mason, James (1958) [originally published in 1894]. The
Art of Chess. David McKay. pp. 461–62.
[23] Tarrasch, Siegbert (1976). The Game of Chess. David
McKay. p. 322. ISBN 0-679-14042-5.
[24] The Grand International Masters’ Tournament at St. Pe-
tersburg 1914, David McKay, c. 1915, p. 75.
[25] Polugaevsky, Lev; Jeroen Piket; Christophe Gueneau
(1995). Sicilian Love: Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tourna-
ment, Bueno Aires 1994. New in Chess. pp. 67–69. ISBN
90-71689-99-9.
[26] Keene, R. (March 22, 1997). “Mafia connections”. The
Spectator. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
[27] “Capablanca plays the Sicilian”.
[28] “Tarrasch plays the Sicilian”.
[29] Alekhine, Alexander (1961). The Book of the New York
International Chess Tournament 1924. New York: Dover
Publications. p. 253. ISBN 0-486-20752-8.
4.1. SICILIAN DEFENCE
[30] Harding, T. “The Openings at New York 1924”. Archived
from the original on 2008-05-31. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
[31] Korn, Walter; Nick DeFirmian (1990). Modern Chess
Openings. David McKay. p. 243. ISBN 0-8129-1785-
5.
[32] Evans, Larry; Walter Korn (1965). Modern Chess Open-
ings. Pitman. p. 182. ASIN B000HX7GR0.
[33] Gufeld, Eduard (June 1998). Secrets of the Sicilian
Dragon. Cardoza Publishing. ISBN 0-940685-92-2.
[34] Atanas Kolev and Trajko Nedev, The Easiest Sicilian,
Chess Stars (Bulgaria), 2008, pp. 203–05. ISBN 978-
954-8782-66-1.
[35] Kolev & Nedev, pp. 205–09.
[36] Kolev & Nedev, pp. 211–13.
[37] Kolev & Nedev, pp. 209–10.
[38] “Kalashnikov Variation”.
[39] “Kasparov vs. rest of world: Barnet Chess Club perspec-
tive”. Retrieved March 23, 2014.
[40] “FOXY OPENINGS - VOLUME 30 - Kopec Anti-
Sicilian System”.
[41] Aron Nimzowitsch, My System (21st Century Edition),
Hays Publishing, 1991, p. 250, ISBN 1-880673-85-1;
Aron Nimzovich, My System, David McKay, 1947, p.
358, ISBN 0-679-14025-5.
[42] John Nunn and Joe Gallagher, Beating the Sicilian 3,
Henry Holt and Company, 1995, pp. 200–01. ISBN 0-
8050-4227-X.
[43] John Nunn and Joe Gallagher, Beating the Sicilian 3,
Henry Holt and Company, 1995, pp. 201–02. ISBN 0-
8050-4227-X.
[44] John Nunn and Joe Gallagher, Beating the Sicilian 3,
Henry Holt and Company, 1995, pp. 203–05. ISBN 0-
8050-4227-X.
[45] John Cox, Starting Out: Sicilian Sveshnikov, Gloucester
Publishers, 2007, pp. 249–50. ISBN 978-1-85744-431-
5.
[46] Tal Gambit Declined jeremysilman.com
[47] Nigel Davies (1998). The Chess Player’s Battle Manual
(book). London: Batsford Books. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-
7134-7043-7. Retrieved 7 December 2013.
[48] Alexander Raetsky, Meeting 1.e4, Everyman Chess, 2002,
p. 134. ISBN 1-85744-219-9.
[49] John Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 1,
Gambit Publications, 2006, p. 175. ISBN 978-1-904600-
60-2.
[50] Joe Gallagher, Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Batsford/Henry
Holt, 1994, p. 78. ISBN 0-8050-3575-3.
73
[51] Richard Palliser, Fighting the Anti-Sicilians, Gloucester
Publishers, 2007, pp. 201–02. ISBN 978-1-85744-520-
6.
[52] Jeremy Silman, Winning with the Sicilian Defence: A
Complete Repertoire Against 1.e4 (2nd ed. 1998), Chess
Digest, p. 289. ISBN 0-87568-198-0.
[53] Joe Gallagher, Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Batsford/Henry
Holt, 1994, pp. 78–79. ISBN 0-8050-3575-3.
[54] Snyder, Robert (1977). Snyder Sicilian: A Complete Open-
ing System 2.P-QN3 . . .. vs. Sicilian. Ron’s Postal Chess
Club.
[55] Rotella, Tony (2014). The Killer Sicilian. Everyman
Chess. p. 431. ISBN 978-1-85744-665-4.
[56] Gallagher, Joe (1994). Beating the Anti-Sicilians. Henry
Holt and Company. p. 81. ISBN 0-8050-3575-3.
[57] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/3597417/
r1bqkbnr/pp1ppppp/2n5/2p5/P3P3/8/1PPP1PPP/
RNBQKBNR%20w%20KQkq%20-%201%203
[58] http://chesstempo.com/game-database.html
[59] Andy Soltis, The Great Chess Tournaments and Their Sto-
ries, Chilton Book Company, 1975, pp. 17–18. ISBN
0-8019-6138-6.
[60] Washington Post Chess column by Lubomir Kavalek,
September 26, 2005. Nakamura–Volokitin is also anno-
tated by Neil McDonald
4.1.11 Further reading
• Levy, David; O'Connell, Kevin (1987). How to Play
the Sicilian Defense. Macmillan Publishers. ISBN
0-02-029191-4.
• Bangiev, Alexander (1988). Developments in the Si-
cilian 2.f4 1980–88. Quadrant Marketing.
• Plaskett, James (1997). The Sicilian Taimanov. Ev-
eryman Chess. ISBN 978-1-901259-01-8.
• Plaskett, James (2000). Sicilian Grand Prix Attack.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-291-5.
• Golubev, Mikhail (2000). The Sicilian Sozin.
Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-38-8.
• Rogozenko, Dorian (2003). Anti-Sicilians A Guide
for Black. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-901983-
84-6.
• Rogozenko, Dorian (2005). Sveshnikov Reloaded.
Quality Chess. ISBN 91-97524-35-2.
• Raetsky, Alexander; Chetverik, Maxim (2007).
Classical Sicilian. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-
537-6.
• Hellsten, Johan (2008). Play the Sicilian Kan. Ev-
eryman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-581-7.
74 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

• de la Villa, Jesus (2009). Dismantling the Sicilian. White has a number of options including 4.d4, 4.Nf3,
New in Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-294-9. 4.g3 and 4.Bc4.

• Yakovich, Yuri (2010). Sicilian Attacks. New In Alapin Variation 2...d5

Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-332-8.

• Taylor, Timothy (2012). Slay the Sicilian!. Every-

man Chess. ISBN 978-1857446845. 2...d5

• Understanding The Sicilian Defense B21-B99 This is the main alternative to 2...Nf6 for Black. The
usual continuation is 3. exd5 Qxd5, a line known as the
Barmen Defense.[3] 3.e5 may transpose into the Advance
4.2 Sicilian Defence, Alapin Varia- Variation of the French Defence if Black responds with
3...e6, but Black can also develop his c8-Bishop before
tion playing e6. This leads to a favourable version of the
French for Black, since the bishop is no longer hemmed
In chess, the Sicilian Defence, Alapin Variation is a in by the pawn chain. If White plays 3.exd5, 3...Nf6 is
response to the Sicilian Defence characterised by the possible, but it is not clear whether Black receives suffi-
moves: cient compensation for the pawn.
The main options revolve around:
1. e4 c5
2. c3 • 4. d4 Nc6 and now 5.dxc5 or 5.Nf3

It is named after the Russian master Semyon Alapin • 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 when after both 5...e6 and 5...Bg4
(1856–1923). For many years it was not held in high White can try a number of different moves.
regard, since 2...d5 was thought to allow Black easy
equality.[1][2]
Alapin Variation 2...e6
Today, the Alapin is considered one of the most
solid and respectable Anti-Sicilians and is champi-
oned by grandmasters such as Evgeny Sveshnikov,
Eduardas Rozentalis, Sergei Tiviakov, Duško Pavasovič 2...e6
and Drazen Sermek. It has been played by World Cham-
pions Viswanathan Anand, Garry Kasparov, Anatoly This is Black’s most solid response, preparing 3...d5. It
Karpov, Veselin Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik. Deep is closely related to the French Defense, to which it often
Blue played the Alapin Variation against Kasparov in transposes. White can transpose to the Advance Variation
their 1996 match, to avoid a main line Sicilian that would of the French Defense with 3.d4 d5 4.e5. Alternatively,
walk into Kasparov’s lifetime of experience with the White can transpose to a sort of Tarrasch French with
opening. 3.d4 d5 4.Nd2, or try to demonstrate a slight advantage
The Alapin is also sometimes seen in deferred form, par- with 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Be3.
ticularly if Black chooses an unusual second move after Alapin Variation 2...d6
2.Nf3. For example, after 2.Nf3 a6 or 2.Nf3 Qc7, 3.c3 is
often seen, since neither ...a6 nor ...Qc7 are particularly
useful moves against the Alapin.
2...d6
4.2.1 Main variations This is a sharp response. Black often offers a gambit with
3.d4 Nf6 4.dxc5 Nc6 (4...Nxe4?? 5.Qa4+) 5.cxd6 Nxe4.
Alapin Variation 2...Nf6
White can instead play quietly, however, with 3.d4 Nf6
4.Bd3, occupying the centre and maintaining a spatial ad-
vantage.
2...Nf6

The main line in current practice is 2... Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4.2.2 Other tries
and can also arise if White offers, and Black declines, the
Smith–Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Alapin Variation 2...e5
Nd5).
4.3. SICILIAN DEFENCE, DRAGON VARIATION 75

2...e5 4.3 Sicilian Defence, Dragon Vari-

This move makes it hard for White to play d4, but se-
riously weakens the d5 square. Play usually continues
3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4, with a solid edge for White.
ation
In chess, the Dragon Variation[1] is one of the main lines
of the Sicilian Defence and begins with the moves:

4.2.3 See also 1. e4 c5

2. Nf3 d6
• List of chess openings
3. d4 cxd4
• List of chess openings named after people 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 g6
4.2.4 References
In the Dragon, Black fianchettoes their bishop on the h8–
[1] Siegbert Tarrasch wrote, using descriptive chess nota- a1 diagonal, building a home for the king on g8 while
tion, “To 2.P-QB3? Black can advantageously reply with aiming the bishop at the center and queenside. White
2...P-Q4!.” Siegbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess, David frequently seeks to meet Black’s setup with Be3, Qd2
McKay, 1938, p. 322. ISBN 978-1-880673-94-2 (1994 and Bh6, exchanging off the dragon bishop, followed by
Hays Publishing edition). launching a kingside pawn storm with h4–h5 and g4. To
involve the a1 rook in the attack, White usually castles
[2] Walter Korn, much like Tarrasch, dismissed the Alapin
queenside, which however places the White king on the
with “2...P-Q4!=.” Walter Korn, Modern Chess Openings,
11th Edition (commonly referred to as MCO-11), Pitman semi-open c-file. The result is often some blood-curdling
Publishing, 1972, p. 148. ISBN 0-273-41845-9. chess where both sides attack the other’s king with all
available resources: either Black’s king bites the dust, or
[3] “David Howell vs. Wang Yue (2012)". Retrieved 31 Jan- his counterplay arrives just in time that White gets mated
uary 2012. instead. The line is one of the sharpest and most aggres-
sive variations of the Sicilian Defence, making it one of
Bibliography the sharpest of all chess openings.[2]
The modern form of the Dragon was originated by Ger-
[3]
• Rozentalis, Eduardas and Harley, Andrew, Play the man master Louis Paulsen around 1880. It was played
2.c3 Sicilian (UK: Gambit Publications 2002) ISBN frequently by Henry Bird that decade, then received gen-
1-901983-56-0 eral acceptance around 1900 when played by Harry Nel-
son Pillsbury and other masters.
• Collins, Sam (2007). Chess Explained: The c3 Sicil-
The name “Dragon” was first coined by Russian chess
ian. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1904600718.
master and amateur astronomer Fyodor Dus-Chotimirsky
who noted the resemblance of Black’s kingside pawn
4.2.5 Further reading structure to the constellation Draco.[4]

• Sveshnikov, Evgeny (1997). Sicilian Defence B22. 4.3.1 Yugoslav Attack: 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0
Chess Informant. ISBN 8672970292.
8.Qd2 Nc6
• Chandler, Murray (1997). The Complete c3 Sicilian.
Intl Chess Enterprises. ISBN 1879479508. The Yugoslav Attack is considered to be the main line
that gives maximum chances for both sides. It continues:
• Emms, John (2008). Starting Out: The c3 Sicilian.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-570-8. 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3
• Sveshnikov, Evgeny (2010). The Complete C3 Si-
The point of White’s last move is to safeguard e4 and to
cilian: The Alapin Variation by Its Greatest Expert.
stop Black from playing ...Ng4 harassing White’s dark-
New in Chess. ISBN 9056913298.
squared bishop. Black cannot play 6.Be3 Ng4?? imme-
diately because of 7.Bb5+ either winning a piece after
4.2.6 External links 7...Bd7 as white can play Qxg4 due to the pin on the d7
bishop, or winning an exchange and pawn after 7...Nc6
• Chess openings Sicilian, Alapin (B22) 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bxc6+ forking king and rook.

• An Interesting Idea in the Alapin Sicilian 7... 0-0 8. Qd2 Nc6

76 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

and now there are fundamentally two distinct branches Yugoslav Attack with 9.Bc4
with 9. 0-0-0 leading to more positional play while 9.
Bc4 leads to highly tactical double-edged positions. Main article: Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack, 9.Bc4
The Yugoslav Attack exemplifies the spirit of the Dragon The Soltis Variation of the 9.Bc4 Yugoslav Attack
with race-to-mate pawn storms on opposite sides of the
board. White tries to break open the Black kingside and
deliver mate down the h-file, while Black seeks counter-
play on the queenside with sacrificial attacks. Typical
White strategies are exchanging dark-squared bishops by
Be3–h6, sacrificing material to open the h-file, and ex-
ploiting pressure on the a2–g8 diagonal and the weakness
of the d5 square.
Black will typically counterattack on the queenside, us-
ing the queenside pawns, rooks, and dark squared bishop.
Black sometimes plays h5 (the Soltis Variation) to defend
against White’s kingside attack. Other typical themes
for Black are exchanging White’s light-square bishop by
Nc6–e5–c4, pressure on the c-file, sacrificing the ex-
change on c3, advancing the b-pawn and pressure on the
long diagonal. Black will generally omit ...a6 because
White will generally win in a straight pawn attack since
Black has given White a hook on g6 to attack. In gen-
eral, White will avoid moving the pawns on a2/b2/c2, and
so Black’s pawn storm will nearly always be slower than
White’s on the kingside. Black can frequently obtain an
acceptable endgame even after sacrificing the exchange
because of White’s h-pawn sacrifice and doubled pawns.
Yugoslav Attack with 9.0-0-0
The purpose of 9.Bc4 is to prevent Black from playing
the freeing move ...d6–d5. The variations resulting from
this move are notorious for having been heavily analysed.
In addition to covering d5, White’s light-squared bishop
helps cover White’s queenside and controls the a2–g8 di-
agonal leading to Black’s king. However, the bishop is
exposed on c4 to an attack by a rook on c8, and usually
has to retreat to b3, giving Black more time to organize
his attack. Common in this line is an exchange sacrifice
on c3 by Black to break up White’s queenside pawns, and
sacrifices to open up the long diagonal for Black’s bishop
on g7 are also common. An example of both ideas is the
line 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 Nc4
13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. h5 Nxh5 15. g4 Nf6 16. Bh6 Nxe4!
17. Qe3 Rxc3!.
The Soltis Variation was the main line of the Dragon up
until the late 1990s. Garry Kasparov played the move
three times in the 1995 World Championship against
Viswanathan Anand, scoring two wins and a draw. The
line goes 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5
12. h4 h5 (the key move, holding up White’s kingside
pawn advance). Other important deviations for Black
are 10...Qa5 and 12...Nc4. More recently, White players
have often avoided the Soltis by playing 12.Kb1, which
has proven so effective that Black players have in turn
tried to dodge this with 10... Rb8, known as the Chinese
Dragon.

4.3.2 Classical Variation: 6.Be2

Position after 16...Be6!
The Classical Variation, 6. Be2, is the oldest White re-
After years of believing White’s best play and chance for sponse to the Dragon. It is the second most common
advantage lay in the main line with 9. Bc4, this older main White response behind the Yugoslav Attack. After 6...
line made a major comeback. White omits Bc4 in order Bg7, White has two main continuations:
to speed up the attack. It used to be thought that allow-
ing 9...d5 here allows Black to equalize easily but further
analysis and play have proven that things are not so clear • After 7. Be3 Nc6 8. 0-0 0-0, White’s two main
cut. In fact, recently Black experienced a time of diffi- responses are 9. Nb3 and 9. Qd2. The knight move
culty in the 9...d5 line facing a brilliant idea by Ivanchuk is a very common one in the Classical Variation and
which seemed to give White the advantage. Some Black Qd2 is well met with 9... d5.
players began experimenting with 9...Bd7 and 9...Nxd4.
Fortunately for Black, the 9...d5 line has been doing bet- • After 7. 0-0 White has a choice of e3 and g5 for
ter in practice. A brilliancy found for White one day is their bishop. If it is placed on e3, the game will usu-
soon enough overturned by some new resource for Black. ally transpose into the lines above. In his book Start-
A case in point is the following line where the evaluation ing Out: The Sicilian Dragon, Andrew Martin calls
of a major line was turned upside down overnight because Be3 “the traditional way of handling the variation”,
of a queen sacrifice played by GM Mikhail Golubev, an and describes Bg5 as being “much more dangerous”
expert on the Dragon: 9. 0-0-0 d5!? 10. Kb1!? Nxd4 and “White’s best chance to play for a win in the
11. e5! Nf5! 12. exf6 Bxf6 13. Nxd5 Qxd5! 14. Qxd5 Classical Dragon.” As with Be3, after Bg5, White
Nxe3 15. Qd3 Nxd1 16. Qxd1 Be6!, where Black has will normally place their knight on b3, avoiding an
almost sufficient compensation for the queen. exchange on d4.
4.3. SICILIAN DEFENCE, DRAGON VARIATION 77

4.3.3 Levenfish Variation: 6.f4 bishop for knight considering that his light-square
bishop does little in this line in comparison with the
The Levenfish Variation, 6. f4, is named after Russian f6-knight’s defensive abilities and White also will
GM Grigory Levenfish who recommended it in the 1937 gain the use of f2–f3 to drive Black back after he re-
Russian Chess Yearbook. It is not currently very com- captures with his bishop. 10.Bxg4 Bxg4 11.f3 Bd7
mon in the highest levels in chess. White prepares 7.e5 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.b3! Rc8 14.h4 Re8! Again, both
attacking Black’s f6-knight therefore in the pre-computer sides have good chances.
era 6... Nc6 or 6... Nbd7 were considered mandatory to
meet the Levenfish variation. However, it has transpired • 9... d5!? A pawn sacrifice similar to lines in the
that after 6... Bg7 7. e5 Nh5 8. Bb5+ Bd7 9. e6 fxe6 more common Yugoslav mainlines. 10.exd5 Nxd5
10. Nxe6 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qc8 Black might actually be 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Qxd5 Qc7! giving
better. up two rooks for the queen but keeping attacking
chances. 14.Qxa8! Bf5 15.Qxf8+ Kxf8 16.Bd3!
Be6 17.Kb1
4.3.4 Harrington–Glek Variation: 6.Be3
• 9... a6 10.Kb1 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.h4! h5 13.f3
Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.Qd2
Be6 14.g4! J.Van der Wiel vs. H. Eidam, Gran Ca-
naria 1996.
The Harrington–Glek Variation is another option for
White. Named after Grandmaster Igor Glek who has
devoted considerable effort evaluating the resulting po- 4.3.5 Other options
sitions for White. 6. Be3 Bg7 7. Be2 0-0 8. Qd2!?
GM John Emms wrote, “Although it’s difficult to beat Other options on White’s sixth move include 6. Bc4, 6.
the Yugoslav in terms of sharp, aggressive play, 7.Be2 f3, and 6. g3.
0-0 8.Qd2!? also contains a fair amount of venom ...
White’s plans include queenside castling and a kingside When Black adopts the Dragon formation without 2...d6,
attack. And there’s a major plus point in that it’s much,White must watch out for ...d5 which often immedi-
much less theoretical!"[5] ately equalises. Lines where Black does this include
the Accelerated Dragon (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4
After the main moves 8... Nc6 9. 0-0-0 we reach a tabiya 4.Nxd4 g6) and Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (1.e4 c5
for the position. 2.Nf3 g6).
Position after 9.0-0-0 Another option for Black is to play what has been called
the “Dragodorf”, which combines ideas from the Dragon
Here Black has tested several options and here they are with those of the Najdorf Variation. While this line may
listed in order of popularity: be played via the Dragon move order (see the Yugoslav
Attack with 9.Bc4). Black can arrive at it with a Najdorf
• 9... Nxd4 This move can lead to both positional move order: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
and attacking chances for both sides. White must 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 g6 (or 5...g6 6.Be3 a6), with the idea of
keep aware that Black may have opportunities to of- Bg7 and Nbd7. Such a move order would be used to try
fer an exchange sacrifice on c3 in order to exploit to avoid a Yugoslav type attack; for instance, after 1.e4 c5
the unprotected e4 pawn. 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1! a 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6, White could
good preparatory move in many lines of the Sicil- play 6.Be2 or 6.f4. In both cases, especially the latter, a
ian Dragon. White wants to be able to play Nd5 Yugoslav-style attack loses some momentum. Usually the
if the situation becomes conducive. White’s king is bishop is more ideally placed on c4, where it can pressure
also getting away from the open c-file which is where f7 and help defend the white king (though the 9.0-0-0
much of Black’s counterplay can develop. 11...Qa5 variation of the Dragon shows that this is not completely
With this move we reach a position where chances necessary), and if White plays f4 and then castles queen-
are roughly balanced and play can take on a life of side, they must always be on guard for Ng4 ideas, some-
its own. thing which the move f3 in traditional Dragon positions
usually discourages. Nonetheless, a Yugoslav-style attack
• 9... Bd7 This move allows Black to keep all his is still playable after both 6.Be2 g6 or 6.f4 g6.
pieces on the board to mount an attack. 10.h4! h5!
Black needs to keep White’s pawns from making a Some famous exponents of the Dragon are Veselin
breaking capture. 11.f3 Rc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5! Topalov, Andrew Soltis, Jonathan Mestel, Chris Ward,
Black can now go for broke with 13...b5!? with an Sergei Tiviakov, Alexei Fedorov, Mikhail Golubev the
interesting position to contest with over the board. late Tony Miles and Eduard Gufeld. Garry Kasparov
used the Dragon with success as a surprise weapon against
• 9... Ng4 This move is played to pick up the bishop world title challenger Viswanathan Anand in 1995 but did
pair by exploiting the absence of f3 in White’s open- not use it subsequently. The Dragon saw its popularity
ing. White is usually fine with allowing the trade of declining in the late 1990s as a result of White resusci-
78 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

tating the old line with 9.0-0-0, however recently there 4.3.9 Further reading
has been a resurgence with moves such as the Chinese
Dragon 10.0-0-0 Rb8!? and an injection of new ideas in • Miles, Tony; Moskow, Eric (1979). Sicilian Dragon:
the 9.0-0-0 line by Dragon devotees. Yugoslav Attack. Batsford Books. ISBN 0-7134-
2029-4.

4.3.6 ECO codes • John Emms; Richard Palliser (2006). Dangerous

Weapons:The Sicilian. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has ten 85744 423 x.
codes for the Dragon Variation, B70[1] through B79. Af-
ter 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6, there is: • Levy, David (1976). The Sicilian Dragon. Batsford.
ISBN 0-19-217571-8.

• B70 5.Nc3 g6 • Ward, Chris (1994). Winning With the Dragon.

Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-7210-3.
• B71 5.Nc3 g6 6.f4 (Levenfish Variation)
• Gufeld, Eduard (1998). Secrets of the Sicilian
• B72 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Dragon. Cardoza. ISBN 0940685922.

• B73 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0-0 (Classical • Golubev, Mikhail (1999). Easy Guide to the Dragon.
Variation) Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1857442755.

• B74 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0-0 0-0 • Ward, Chris (2001). Winning With the Sicilian
9.Nb3 Dragon 2. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-8236-2.

• B75 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 (Yugoslav Attack)
• B76 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0
• B77 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4
• Dearing, Edward (2005). Play The Sicilian Dragon.
Gambit. ISBN 1904600174.
• Martin, Andrew (2005). Starting Out: The Sicilian
Dragon. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1857443985.

• B78 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 • Williams, Simon (2009). The New Sicilian Dragon.
Bd7 10.0-0-0 Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-615-9.

• B79 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4

Bd7 10.0-0-0 Qa5 11.Bb3 Rfc8 12.h4 4.3.10 External links

• Pablo Arguelles. “Sicilian Defense”. Chess Series.

4.3.7 See also Google Video. Retrieved 2007-04-25.

• List of chess openings • Sicilian, Dragon Variation by Bill Wall

• Mikhail Golubev – Experimenting With the Dragon

4.3.8 References

[1] “Sicilian, Dragon Variation (B70)". Chess openings.

Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
4.4 Sicilian Defence, Accelerated
Dragon
[2] Wolff, Patrick (1997). “9”. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
Chess. Patrick Wolff. p. 147. ISBN 0-02-861736-3.
The Accelerated Dragon (or Accelerated Fianchetto)
[3] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1987). The Oxford
is a chess opening variation of the Sicilian Defence that
Companion to Chess. Oxford University Press. p. 95. begins with the moves:
ISBN 0-19-281986-0.
1. e4 c5
[4] Martin, Andrew (2005). “Intro”. Starting Out: The Sicil-
ian Dragon. Everyman Chess. p. 5. ISBN 1-85744-398- 2. Nf3 Nc6
5.
3. d4 cxd4
[5] Dangerous Weapons:The Sicilian 4. Nxd4 g6
4.5. SICILIAN, DRAGON, YUGOSLAV ATTACK, 9.BC4 79

The Accelerated Dragon features an early g6 by Black. 4.4.5 Further reading

An important difference between this line and the Dragon
is that Black avoids playing d7–d6, so that he can later • Donaldson, John W.; Silman, Jeremy (1998). Ac-
play d7–d5 in one move, if possible. Black also avoids celerated Dragons. Everyman Chess. ISBN
the Yugoslav Attack, but since White has not been forced 1857442083.
to play Nc3 yet, 5.c4 (the Maróczy Bind) is possible.
• Hansen, Carsten; Nielsen, Peter Heine (2006). Si-
The Accelerated Dragon generally features a more po- cilian Accelerated Dragon. Sterling Pub. ISBN
sitional style of play than many other variations of the 9780713489477.
Sicilian.
• Greet, Andrew (2008). Starting Out: The Ac-
celerated Dragon. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-
4.4.1 Main line 1857445305.

Position after 7.Bc4 • Understanding The Accelerated Sicilian Dragon

B36

One of the main lines continues: 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 • The Accelerated Dragon, by GM Eugene
7. Bc4 (see diagram). At this point the most important Perelshteyn
Black continuations are 7...0-0 and 7...Qa5. White should
not castle queenside after 7...Qa5, unlike in the Yugoslav • A weakness in the Accelerated Dragon
Attack.
7... 0-0 is the main line, after which White should pro-
ceed with 8. Bb3. If Black plays 8...d6, White usually 4.5 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav at-
plays 9.f3 as in the Yugoslav attack. Although, Black of- tack, 9.Bc4
ten plays 8...a5 or 8...Qa5, after which castling queenside
can be dangerous, and it is often a better idea for White
In chess, the move 9. Bc4 is one of the main options
to castle kingside.
in the chess opening called the Yugoslav Attack, which
is an attack in the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian De-
fence. Also known as the Rauzer System or the St George
4.4.2 Passmore Variation Attack, the Yugoslav Attack begins with the following
moves:
Position after 9...Kxf7

1. e4 c5
Another common line that has been seen in tournaments
continues: 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. Qd4 Nf6 7. e5 Ng8 8. 2. Nf3 d6
e6 Nf6 9. exf7 Kxf7 (see diagram). At this point both
sides have equal chances. Many times the continuation 3. d4 cxd4
10.Bc4+ will be seen, attempting to add kingside pres-
4. Nxd4 Nf6
sure while developing a minor piece. However, Black de-
fends easily with 10...d5 or 10...e6, resulting in a position 5. Nc3 g6
where his king is safe. Both players can choose to play
the game positionally or otherwise will have variable re- 6. Be3 Bg7
sults. Statistically, White’s best move is 10.Be2 followed
with 11.0-0. 7. f3 O-O

8. Qd2 Nc6
4.4.3 See also 9. Bc4

• Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation

One of Great Britain's strongest grandmasters John
• Sicilian Defence Emms notes that:

I can safely say that the Yugoslav Attack is

4.4.4 References the ultimate test of the Dragon. White quickly
develops his queenside and castles long before
• Raymond Keene, Garry Kasparov (1994) [1989]. turning his attentions to an all-out assault on the
Batsford Chess Openings 2. B.T. Batsford Ltd. black king. To the untrained eye, this attack
ISBN 0-8050-3409-9. can look both awesome and unnerving.[1]
80
Statistically, Chessgames.com's database of nearly 1500
master games shows Win–Draw–Loss percentages for
White to be: 46%–25%–29%. Mega Database 2002 in-
dicates that white scores 52% while 66% of the over 1200
games were decisive .
B77[2] is the ECO code for the Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav
Attack, 9.Bc4.
4.5.1 Overview
White tries to break open the black kingside and deliver
checkmate down the h-file, while Black seeks counterplay
on the queenside with sacrificial attacks. Typical white
strategies are exchanging dark squared bishops by Be3–
h6, sacrificing a pawn and sometimes an exchange on h5,
exploiting pressure on the a2–g8 diagonal, and the weak-
ness of the d5 square. 11... Ne5 12. Kb1
Some typical themes for Black are exchanging White’s
light-square bishop by Nc6–e5–c4, pressure on the c-file,
sacrificing the exchange on c3, advancing the b-pawn and
pressuring the long diagonal. White will normally win a
straight pawn attack, because Black has given White a
hook on g6 to attack. Generally, White will avoid mov-
ing their pawns on a2/b2/c2, and so Black’s pawn storm
is nearly always slower than White’s. Black can some-
times obtain an acceptable endgame even after sacrific-
ing the exchange because of White’s h-pawn sacrifice and
doubled pawns.
The Yugoslav Attack with 9. Bc4 results in extremely tac-
tical and decisive battles. White keeps a firm grip on the
center while advancing aggressively towards the enemy
king with f3–f4–f5 and even g2–g3–g4. However, dan-
ger exists in overextending and allowing Black to gain the
initiative with a deadly counterattack. Black’s strategy is
centered around the half-open c-file and their ability to
push the a- and b-pawns. Throughout the entire course
of the battle, Black will be looking to break the center
with an advance from d6–d5. Black can even sometimes
obtain a winning endgame even after sacrificing the ex-
change, because of White’s h-pawn sacrifice, doubled iso-
lated c-pawns and most importantly the lack of mobility
of the White rooks compared to the Black minor pieces.
4.5.2 Main line
9... Bd7 10. 0-0-0
White’s most popular choice. In most Yu-
goslav games, 0-0-0, h4, and Bb3 are all played
by White but the move order matters a great
deal. 10.h4 h5 transposes to the Soltis Vari-
ation but avoids the Chinese Dragon (see be-
low), because after 10.h4 Rb8?! 11.h5! is now
good for White. 10.Bb3 also usually transposes
into the main lines but Black has the additional
CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE
possibility of 10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 which is
known as the Topalov System. White’s best
chances in this line at the moment involve
castling short and trying for a positional edge
in an atypical fashion in the Yugoslav Attack.
10... Rc8 11. Bb3
10...Rc8 develops Black’s rook to the open c-
file, pressuring the queenside and also prepar-
ing a discovered attack on White’s bishop. To
avoid this, White moves the bishop out of
the way with 11.Bb3. Black has also tried
10...Qb8, preparing either 11...Rc8 or 11...b5.
12.h4 h5, commonly known as Soltis Varia-
tion, is the other main option. There are many
ways for White to combat this line, but most of
them have been shown to be flawed: if 13.g4?!
hxg4, both 14.h5 Nxh5 and 14.f4 Nc4 do little
to advance White’s attack as Black would be
able to keep the kingside closed. Later, White
switched to 13.Bg5 Rc5, but even then the ad-
vance of the g-pawn does not promise White
much: 14.g4 hxg4 15.f4!? Nc4 16.Qe2 Qc8!,
a multi-purpose move which threatens ...Nxb2,
increases the pressure on the c-file, prevents
f4–f5 and safeguards the passed g4-pawn. In
the aforementioned position, Black is better,
and the old line proceeds with 14.Kb1 Re8 but
theoretically, Black is doing fine. In search of
an advantage, White players turned to an im-
mediate 12.Kb1, which is probably the most
threatening line at the moment.
12... Re8!?
After 12.Kb1, Black’s most straightforward
idea is no longer effective: 12...Nc4 13.Bxc4
Rxc4 can be met with 14.g4 and White has the
advantage since with the king on b1, there is no
clear way for Black to counterattack. 12...a5 is
also fruitless since White can respond by play-
ing 13.a4!, stunting Black’s queenside play and
creating an outpost on b5. Thus, with no im-
mediate attack available, Black picks the wait-
ing move Re8 which allows Bh6 to be met
with ...Bh8, retaining the Black’s dark-square
bishop. 12...Re8 also protects the e7-pawn, so
that the queen is no longer tied down to its de-
fence. This line is complex and is currently
contested at the highest levels.
4.6. SICILIAN DEFENCE, NAJDORF VARIATION 81

4.5.3 Black ...Qa5 lines 4.5.7 See also

The main line runs: 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Qa5 11. Bb3 • Sicilian Defence
Rfc8 12. h4 Ne5. This approach was originally con-
• Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation
sidered the main variation and was thus given the ECO
code B79 (whilst ...Rc8 was not given any). It was ad-
vocated by GM Chris Ward in his books Winning with 4.5.8 References
the Dragon and Winning with the Dragon 2. This line has
fallen slightly out of favour due to difficulties encountered [1] Emms, John (June 2002). Starting Out: The Sicilian. Ev-
in white’s 12.Kb1 and the credibility of the Soltis varia- eryman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-249-0.
tion in Rc8 lines mentioned above.
[2] “Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack (B77)". Chess open-
ings. Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2007-04-25.

4.5.4 Chinese Dragon

4.5.9 Further reading
The main line with 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. Kb1
• Miles, Tony; Moskow, Eric (1979). Sicilian Dragon:
has proven to be so effective over time that some Dragon
Yugoslav Attack. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-2029-4.
players have attempted to dodge the line with the inter-
esting 10... Rb8. This complicated line is known as the
Chinese Dragon. The most topical line is currently 11. 4.5.10 External links
Bb3 which is really a degree of prophylaxis designed to
prevent the sacrifice of the b-pawn immediately whilst • ECO B79 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack, 12.h4
buying time for White. Black now has the move 11... Chess ECO Database
Na5 which both threatens to play 12...Nc4 13.Bxc4 bxc4,
opening the b-file or just removing the bishop straight off
with ...Nxb3. Originally h4 was played in this position, 4.6 Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Vari-
but recently the move 12. Bh6 has come to prominence,
leading to a sharp and double-edged game in which Black ation
has good practical chances.
The Najdorf Variation[1] (/ˈnaɪdɔːrf/) of the Sicilian
Defence is one of the most respected and deeply stud-
4.5.5 Dragondorf ied of all chess openings. Modern Chess Openings calls it
the "Cadillac" or "Rolls Royce" of chess openings. The
opening is named after the Polish-Argentine grandmaster
10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. Kb1 a6!?. This was first
Miguel Najdorf. Many players have lived by the Najdorf
played by the World Champion M. Botvinnik however it
(notably Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, although
was thought to be too slow. Recently this move is enjoy-
Kasparov would often transpose into a Scheveningen).
ing a comeback due to good practical results for Magnus
Carlsen, a Dragon aficionado and current world number The Najdorf begins:
1 in FIDE ratings and also the current world champion.
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
4.5.6 Sample game 3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
Anatoly Karpov–Viktor Korchnoi, 1974 Candidates Fi-
nal 5. Nc3 a6
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6
6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 Black’s 5...a6 aims to deny the b5-square to White’s
Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. O-O-O Nc4 13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. knights and light-square bishop while maintaining flexible
h5 Nxh5 15. g4 Nf6 16. Nde2 Qa5 17. Bh6 Bxh6 18. development. If Black plays 5...e5?! immediately, then
Qxh6 Rfc8 19. Rd3 R4c5 20. g5 (diagram) Rxg5 21. after 6.Bb5+! Bd7 (or 6...Nbd7 7.Nf5) 7.Bxd7+ Nbxd7
Rd5 Rxd5 22. Nxd5 Re8 23. Nef4 Bc6 24. e5 Bxd5 25. 8.Nf5 and the knight on f5 is difficult to dislodge without
exf6 exf6 26. Qxh7+ Kf8 27. Qh8+ 1–0 concessions.
Position after 20. g5. White sacrifices a pawn so he Black’s plan is usually to start a minority attack on the
can play Rd5 followed by Nd5, pressuring the f6 knight, queenside and exert pressure on White’s e4-pawn. This
without giving up the c2 pawn is often carried out by means of ...b5, ...Bb7, and placing
a knight on c5, or c4 via b6.
82 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

4.6.1 Variations with best play. An example is the game Vallejo

Pons–Kasparov, Moscow 2004,[2] which was
Main line: 6. Bg5 called “a model modern grandmaster draw!"
by Kasparov himself in Revolution in the 70s
Classical Main line: 6...e6 Position after 6.Bg5 e6 (page 164).
7.f4 • 8. Nb3 White opts for a quiet game, but Black
has nothing to worry about: 8... Be7 9. Qf3
The main move. In the early days of the Najdorf 7.Qf3 Nbd7 10. 0-0-0 Qc7 where we have reached a
was popular, but the reply 7...h6 did not allow White to set up very similar to that of the old main line
obtain any real advantage. Nowadays, White players al- mentioned above. However, without the d4-
most universally respond with the move: 7. f4. White knight White will find it very hard to organise
threatens 8. e5 winning a piece, but Black has several an attack.
options:
• 7... b5 the ultra-sharp Polugaevsky Variation.[3]
Black ignores White’s threat and expands in Queen-
• 7... Be7 8. Qf3 and now: side. 8. e5 dxe5 9. fxe5 Qc7 here White either
plays 10. exf6 Qe5+ 11. Be2 Qxg5 or 10. Qe2
• 8... Qc7 9. 0-0-0 Nbd7, this is called the old
Nfd7 11. 0-0-0 Bb7.
main line. At this point White usually responds
with 10. g4 or 10. Bd3. After each of these • 7... Qc7 championed by Garry Kasparov before he
moves there is a huge body of opening theory. switched to playing 7...Qb6 exclusively.
• 8... h6 9. Bh4 g5. This is known as the Ar-
gentine/Goteborg Variation. It was first played • 7... Nbd7 popularised by Boris Gelfand.
in round 14 of 1955 Goteborg Interzonal si- • 7... Nc6?! is risky and of a dubious theoretical rep-
multaneously by Argentine players Panno, Pil- utation due to the response: 8. e5!
nik and Najdorf who were facing the Soviet
Grandmasters Geller, Spassky and Keres. The • 7... h6!? the Poisoned Pawn Deferred. This varia-
games in question proceeded as follows: 10. tion is very popular at the moment.
fxg5 Nfd7 Black aims to route a knight to
e5, and then back it up by a knight at d7 or
c6. 11. Nxe6!? (Efim Geller's discovery). Verbeterde List: 6...Nbd7 Position after 6.Bg5
11... fxe6 12. Qh5+ Kf8 13. Bb5 here Nbd7 7.Bc4
Panno played 13...Ne5, while Pilnik and Naj-
dorf chose 13...Kg7. However, all three Ar- Historically speaking, this was the usual reply until the
gentine players lost in very short order and mid-1960s, when the rejoinder 7.Bc4 put the move “out
the line was, for a while, considered refuted.
of business”. Recently however, ideas have been found by
It was only in 1958 that Bobby Fischer in- some Dutch players who call this variation De Verbeterde
troduced the defensive resource 13... Rh7!, List (“The Improved Strategem”). The idea for Black is
versus Svetozar Gligorić at the Portorož Inter-
to postpone ...e6 in order to retain more dynamic options
zonal, in a critical last-round game. Accord-(for example, to play e7–e5 in one move). The idea was
ing to modern opening theory this position istested by Petrosian, Belov, and others, but received pop-
a draw at best for White. ular attention and developed rapidly after use by Dutch
player Lody Kuling in 2007. The most important devel-
• 7... Qb6 one of the most popular choices at master opments include:
level.

• 8. Qd2 the extremely complicated Poisoned • 7. f4 Qc7 8. Qf3:

Pawn Variation: 8... Qxb2 9. Rb1 (9.Nb3 is
the other less common option) 9... Qa3 and
here White has played both 10. f5 and 10. e5.
Both lead to extremely sharp play where slight-
est inaccuracy is fatal for either side. Since
2006, when it was played in several high level
games, 10. e5 has become very popular. From
the standpoint of the theory it is regarded as
White’s only attempt to play for a win against
the poisoned pawn variation since all other
variations (and that includes the other pawn
move: 10. f5) have been analysed to a draw
• 8... h6 9. Bh4 e5. A setup discovered
by Lody Kuling.(This variation is covered by
Ufuk Tuncer and Twan Burg in New In Chess,
Yearbook 102.) The idea is to gain time over
...e6 by playing e7–e5 in one move. Later on
it turned out that 9...g5! is even better.
• 8... b5 is the Neo Verbeterde List. This is
a new way to play the Verbeterde List. It in-
cludes fianchetting the bishop to b7. (The vari-
ation is covered by Ufuk Tuncer in New In
Chess, Yearbook 101.)
4.6. SICILIAN DEFENCE, NAJDORF VARIATION 83

• 7. Bc4 Qb6 This is a move introduced by Lenier was a frequent guest at the top level through the 1970s.
Dominguez. The idea is to win a tempo by attack- White plays 6. Bc4 with the idea of playing against f7,
ing b2, after which Black can finish his development so Black counters with 6... e6 7. Bb3 b5. The Sozin
beginning 8...e6. The last word on the line has not has become less popular because of 6... e6 7. Bb3 Nbd7
yet been given. The whole variation with 6... Nbd7 where Black intends to follow up with ...Nc5 later. It is
is covered in the book by Ľubomír Ftáčnik in the possible to avoid the Nbd7 option with 7. 0-0, but this
chapter “Blood Diamond”. cuts the aggressive possibility to castle long.
• 7. f4/Qe2 g6: Grischuk’s Verbeterde List. An-
other modern way to meet both 7.f4 and 7.Qe2. The Classical/Opocensky Variation: 6.Be2
idea is to castle kingside rapidly and then start to
attack with b5–b4, while wasting no time with the Because of the success of various players with these vari-
e-pawn. ations, White often plays 6. Be2 and goes for a quieter,
more positional game, whereupon Black has the option
of transposing into a Scheveningen Variation by playing
English Attack: 6.Be3
6... e6 or keeping the game in Najdorf lines by playing
6... e5. Another option is to play 6... Nbd7, in the spirit
Position after 6.Be3
of The Verbeterde List. It is for this reason that this vari-
ation is called The Verbeterde List Unlimited.
This has become the modern main line. Since the early
1990s, the English Attack, 6. Be3 followed by f3, g4,
Qd2 and 0-0-0 in some order, has become extremely pop- Amsterdam Variation: 6.f4
ular and has been intensively analysed. Black has three
main options: 6. f4

• The classical 6... e5. After 7. Nb3, Black usually Some lines include:
continues 7... Be6, trying to control the d5-square.
The most common move is then 8. f3, allowing 6...e5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.a4 Be7 9.Bd3 0-0
White to play Qd2 next move. If White had tried
to play 8. Qd2, then Black could respond with 8... 6...Qc7 7.Bd3
Ng4. Instead White can play 7.Nf3, in which case 6...e6 7.Be2
Black’s main choices are 7...Be7 and 7...Qc7.
• Trying to transpose to the Scheveningen by playing GM Daniel King recommends 6...g6 against the Amster-
6... e6. White can either opt for the standard En- dam Variation, leading to a more defensive kingside pawn
glish attack by playing 7. f3 or try the even sharper structure. The idea is to eventually counterattack on the
Hungarian attack (also known as Perenyi attack) by g1-a7 diagonal[4]with a move like Qb6, preventing white
playing 7. g4. from castling. An example line would be 6...g6 7.Nf3
Bg7 8.a4 Nc6 (note 8...Nc6 as opposed to the usual Naj-
• The knight move: 6... Ng4. White continues with: dorf Nbd7, as c6 is a more flexible square for the knight
7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 but the nature of with a queen on b6) 9.Bd3 Qb6.
this position is quite different from the ones arising
after 6... e6 and 6... e5 so sometimes White tries to
avoid the knight jump by playing 6. f3 instead of 6. The Adams Attack: 6.h3
Be3. However, aside from eliminating the option to
play the Hungarian attack mentioned above, it gives Introduced by Weaver Adams during the middle of the
Black other possibilities such as 6... Qb6 and 6... twentieth century, this odd looking pawn move has mostly
b5 instead. been used as a surprise weapon to combat the Najdorf.
Should Black continue with 6...e5 anyway, White can re-
• The Verbeterde List approach: 6... Nbd7. The idea spond with 7.Nde2 following up with g4 and Ng3, fighting
of this move is to get into the English attack while for the weak light squares by playing g5. It is thus recom-
avoiding the Perenyi attack. 7. g4 is less dangerous mended that Black prevents g4 altogether with 7...h5.
now because with 6... Nbd7 black is more flexible
Black can also employ a Scheveningen setup with 6...e6
as the bishop on c8 can attack g4 now and the knight
followed by 7.g4 b5 8.Bg2 Bb7, forcing White to lose
on d7 can jump to interesting squares.
more time by defending the e4 pawn, since b4 is a threat.
It was not until the early 2008 when an answer to Black
Fischer–Sozin Attack: 6.Bc4 was finally found. After 9.0-0 b4, White has the po-
sitional sacrifice 10.Nd5!, which gives Black long term
Introduced by Veniamin Sozin in the 1930s, this received weaknesses and an open e-file for White to play on. Since
little attention until Fischer regularly adopted it, and it then, it has been popular on all levels of chess.
84 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

Other sixth moves for White
Beside the main lines mentioned above White has other
options: 6. f3 and 6. g3 are less common, but are also
respected responses to the Najdorf. Moves such as 6. a4,
6. Bd3, 6. a3, 6. Nb3, 6. Rg1 (the Petronic Attack), 6.
Qf3, and 6. Qe2 are rarely played, but are not so bad and
may be used for surprise value.
• King, Daniel (2002). Winning With the Najdorf.
Sterling Pub Co Inc. ISBN 0713470372.
• Emms, John (2003). Play the Najdorf: Scheveningen
Style. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-323-3.
• de Firmian, Nick; Fedorowicz, John (2004). The
English Attack. Sterling. ISBN 978-0945806141.

• Sammalvuo, Tapani (2004). The English Attack.

4.6.2 See also Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-901983-57-9.

• List of chess openings • Gallagher, Joe (2006). Starting Out: Sicilian Naj-
dorf. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1857443929.
• List of chess openings named after people
• Palliser, Richard (2007). Starting Out: Sicilian Naj-
dorf. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-601-2.
4.6.3 References
• Rizzitano, James (2010). Play the Najdorf Sicilian.
[1] “Sicilian, Najdorf (B90)". Chess openings. Chess- Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-906454-16-6.
games.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
• Ftacnik, Lubomir (2010). The Sicilian Defence.
[2] “Francisco Vallejo-Pons vs Garry Kasparov (2004)". Re- Quality Chess. ISBN 978-1-906552-08-4.
trieved 2008-01-19.
• Yearbook 101. New In Chess. 2011. ISBN
[3] “Sicilian, Najdorf (B96)". Chess openings. Chess-
9056913611.
games.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19. (also known as Naj-
dorf, Polugayevsky Variation)
• Yearbook 102. New In Chess. 2012. ISBN
[4] King, Daniel. Power Play 18: The Sicilian Najdorf. 9056913638.

4.6.4 Further reading 4.6.5 External links

• O'Kelly de Galway, Albéric (1969). The Sicilian • Najdorf Variation video and analysis
Flank Game (Najdorf Variation). Batsford. ISBN
9780713403510. • Najdorf Variation at ChessGames.com

• Geller, Efim; Gligoric, Svetozar; Kavalek, Lubomir; • Sicilian Defense Najdorf Variation, English Attack
Spassky, Boris (1976). The Najdorf Variation of the (B90) – Openings – Chess.com
Sicilian Defense. RHM Press. ISBN 0890580251.
Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)

• Stean, Michael (1976). Sicilian, Najdorf. Batsford. 4.7 Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen
ISBN 0713400986. Variation
• Adams, Jimmy (1977). Main Line Najdorf. The
Chess Player. ISBN 0900928905. In the opening of a game of chess, the Scheveningen
Variation[1] of the Sicilian Defence is a line of the Open
• Adams, Jimmy (1977). Najdorf Poisoned Pawn. Sicilian characterised by Black setting up a “small cen-
The Chess Player. ISBN 0906042070. tre” with pawns on d6 and e6. There are numerous move
orders that reach the Scheveningen. One possible move
• Adams, Jimmy (1978). Sicilian Najdorf Polu- order is:
gaevsky Variation. The Chess Player. ISBN
0906042097.
1. e4 c5
• Nunn, John (1999). Complete Najdorf: Modern
2. Nf3 d6
Lines. Sterling Pub Co Inc. ISBN 0713482184.
3. d4 cxd4
• Kosten, Tony; Gormally, Danny (1999). Easy
4. Nxd4 Nf6
Guide to the Najdorf. Everyman Chess. ISBN
1857445295. 5. Nc3 e6
4.7. SICILIAN DEFENCE, SCHEVENINGEN VARIATION 85

The seemingly modest d6–e6 pawn centre affords Black other distinguished grandmasters, this methodical ap-
provide a solid defensive barrier, control of the critical proach has gained many followers. The main line con-
d5- and e5-squares, and retains flexibility to break in the tinues 6... a6 7. 0-0 Be7 8. Be3 0-0 9. f4 Qc7 10. a4
centre with either ...e5 or ...d5. Black can proceed with Nc6 11. Kh1 Re8 12. Bf3 (diagram) reaching one of
rapid development and the opening provides sound coun- the main tabiyas of the Classical Scheveningen . White’s
terchances and considerable scope for creativity. plans here are to build up a kingside attack, typically by
The line has been championed by Garry Kasparov, among means of g2–g4–g5, Qd1–e1–h4, Bg2, Qh5, Rf3–h3,
many other distinguished grandmasters. etc. Black will aim for a diversion on the queenside via
the semi-open c-file, or strike in the centre. Positional
pawn sacrifices abound for both sides and the theory is
very highly developed, thanks to decades of research by
4.7.1 Origin the most elite players such as Garry Kasparov, Vasily
Smyslov, Anatoly Karpov, Viswanathan Anand, Veselin
The variation first came under international attention dur-
Topalov, Boris Gelfand and many others.
ing the 1923 chess tournament in the village Schevenin-
gen at the North Sea coast near The Hague. During the
tournament the variation was played several times by sev-
eral players, including Euwe playing it against Maroczy.
4.7.4 English Attack: 6.Be3

4.7.2 Keres Attack: 6.g4 English Attack after 10.0-0-0 Bb7

Keres Attack after 8.Rg1

White has several different attacking schemes available,
but the one considered most dangerous is the Keres
Attack,[2] named after GM Paul Keres, which continues
6. g4. This move takes advantage of the fact that 5...e6
cuts off the black bishop’s control of g4, and plans to
force the knight on f6, Black’s only developed piece, to
retreat and force black into passivity. This also launches
White into a kingside attack. Black usually continues
with 6... h6 to stop White’s expansion. Previously moves
like 6...Nc6 or 6...a6 were also recommended for Black
but practical tests have shown that White’s offensive is
too dangerous to be ignored. 7. h4 is strongest and the
most popular. 7.g5 hxg5 8.Bxg5 Nc6 9.Qd2 Qb6 10.Nb3
a6 11.0-0-0 Bd7 12.h4 gives White an equal game at best.
7... Nc6 8. Rg1 (diagram) and here Black has two main
lines to choose from:
The combative “English Attack” is modeled after the Yu-
goslav (Rauzer) Attack in the Sicilian Dragon. White
starts an aggressive pawn storm on the kingside with f2–
f3, g2–g4, h2–h4, and often g4–g5. White castles long
and a very sharp game is often the result. Black, how-
ever, does not have to acquiesce to passive defence and
has at least as many attacking threats. The main line con-
tinues 6. Be3 a6 7. f3 b5 8. g4 h6 9. Qd2 Nbd7 10.
0-0-0 Bb7. White’s plans are to force g4–g5 and open
the kingside files to his advantage. The first player may
also exert considerable pressure on the d-file. Black will
often consider an exchange sacrifice or at least a pawn
sacrifice to open the queenside files for the heavy pieces.
Time is of the essence and new ideas are discovered each
year. Many elite players including Alexander Moroze-
vich, Peter Leko, and Alexei Shirov have poured many
hours of study into this critical variation.

• 8... d5 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 exd5

12.Qe2+ Be7 13.Nf5 Bxf5 14.gxf5 Kf8 15.Be3 4.7.5 Other variations
Qa5+

• 8... h5 9.gxh5 Nxh5 10.Bg5 Nf6 11.Qd2 Fischer-Sozin Attack: 6.Bc4

With the Fischer-Sozin Attack 6. Bc4,[4][5] White tries to

both of which may give White a slight edge.
pressure the d5-square directly. Viable Black responses
in the centre include variations of Nb8–c6–a5 or Nb8–
d7–c5, supplemented by a7–a6 and b7–b5–b4 on the
4.7.3 Classical Variation: 6.Be2 queenside. A possible line is 6...Be7 7.Bb3 0-0 8.Be3
Na6 (aiming for the c5-square; note that in case 8...Nbd7,
Classical Variation after 12.Bf3 then 9.Bxe6!? fxe6 10.Nxe6 Qa5 11.Nxf8 Bxf8, and
White sacrifices two pieces for a rook) 9.Qe2 Nc5 10.f3.
Another very popular variation is the Classical[3] (also The ensuing position is balanced, with Black ready to
known as Maroczy Variation) which is initiated by 6. counter White’s g2–g4–g5 with a7–a6 and b7–b5–b4 on
Be2. Used to great effect by Anatoly Karpov, among the other flank.
86 CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE

Tal Variation: 6.f4 [2] “Sicilian, Keres Attack (B81)". Chess openings. Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
After 6. f4,[6] in one of the main lines, 6... Nc6 7. Be3
Be7 8. Qf3, White seeks to castle queenside placing his [3] “Sicilian, Scheveningen, Classical (B85)". Chess open-
rook on the half-open d-file, and support the g-pawn’s ad- ings. Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
vance with the queen. [4] “Sicilian, Fischer–Sozin Attack (B86)". Chess openings.
Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
Minor lines
[5] “Sicilian, Fischer–Sozin Attack (B88)". Chess openings.
Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
6. g3; 6. Bb5, etc. These moves are less difficult to meet
and are not theoretically challenging to Black. [6] “Sicilian, Scheveningen (B82)". Chess openings. Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19. (known as Tal Vari-
ation)
4.7.6 Question of move orders and the Na-
jdorf Variation [7] Nunn, John. “Play the Najdorf: Scheveningen Style-A
Complete Repertoire for Black in this Most Dynamic of
The Keres Attack puts Black into a rather defensive and Openings (9781857443233): John Emms: Books”. Ama-
potentially dangerous position. For this reason, many ad- zon.com. Retrieved 2012-01-12.
vocates of this defense tend to play the Najdorf Varia- [8] Williams, Simon. “Dynamics of Chess Strategy
tion move order and then play 6...e6, transposing into the (9780713486087): Vlastimil Jansa: Books”. Ama-
Scheveningen. The most prominent example of such a zon.com. Retrieved 2012-01-12.
preference for the Najdorf move order was seen in World
Chess Championship 1984, where after game one when [9] Averbakh, Yuri. “The Best Move (9780890580417):
Kasparov had difficulties in the opening, he never allowed Books”. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2012-01-12.
the Keres Attack and finally switched to the Najdorf move
order. One should note that the Najdorf move order,
while eliminating 6.g4, still gives White additional op- 4.7.9 Further reading
tions, and g4 is still a possibility a move after.
• Kinlay, Jon (1981). Sicilian: Keres Attack. Batsford.
Much modern analysis of the Scheveningen is under the
ISBN 0-7134-2139-8.
rubric of the Najdorf. In fact, many books exploring the
Scheveningen today have Najdorf in the title. This, con- • Pritchett, Craig (2006). Sicilian Scheveningen.
tinuing the line of thinking in the English section above, Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781857444131.
is technically the Najdorf Variation of the Sicilian de-
fense with the very popular English Attack. Note that
the “Modern” Scheveningen only covers lines without an
early ...a6 from Black. The “Classical” Scheveningen in- 4.8 Chekhover Sicilian
cludes the early ...a6. This distinction is important in
choosing books to study, as titles covering recent games The Sicilian Defence, Chekhover Variation (also
will often leave out the ...a6 early line, which can still sometimes called the Szily Variation or Hungarian
become quite interesting and complex, and still advan- Variation) is a chess opening named after Vitaly
tageous for Black, even with the powerful English At- Chekhover, from the game Chekhover–Lisitsin,
tack. Many modern chess software programs, such as Leningrad 1938.[1] It is defined by the moves:
HIARCS, still play ...a6 early on, despite the fact that
“modern” often precludes the line in definitive analysis,
1. e4 c5
depending on the book. Vlastimil Jansa has advocated
[7][8][9]
this variation. 2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4.7.7 See also 4. Qxd4

• List of chess openings

• List of chess openings named after places
4.7.8 References
[1] “Sicilian, Scheveningen Variation (B80)". Chess openings.
Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
On move four White ignores the standard opening
principle to not develop the queen too early in the
game. Although the Chekhover Variation is somewhat
rare at grandmaster level, it is not uncommon among
amateurs.[2]
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) assigns
code B53 to this opening.[3]
4.9. WING GAMBIT 87

4.8.1 Main line: 4...Nc6 [3] Sicilian ECO: B53

Black’s main response to the Chekhover Variation is 4...

[4] Evgeni Vasiukov vs Loek van Wely (2002) chess-
Nc6 immediately attacking White’s queen, leading to: games.com

• 5. Bb5 pinning the knight: 5...Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6.

[5] Mikhail Tal vs Robert Eugene Byrne (1976) chess-
• 5. Qa4?! avoiding an exchange and keeping the games.com
light-square bishop.

4.8.2 Other continuations 4.9 Wing Gambit

• 4... a6 prevents a future pin: 5.c4 Nc6 6.Qd1.
In chess, Wing Gambit is a generic name given to
• 4... Bd7 prepares 5...Nc6. openings in which White plays an early b4, deflecting an
• 4... Nf6 avoids exchanges and continues with enemy pawn or bishop from c5 so as to regain control of
development. d4, an important central square. (Or in which Black plays
...b5, but Wing Gambits offered by Black are very rare.)
The most common Wing Gambit is in the Sicilian De-
4.8.3 Example games fence (1.e4 c5 2.b4). The most important Wing Gambit
is the Evans Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4),
Evgeni Vasiukov vs Loek van Wely, 2002 treated separately.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6

5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Bg5
e6 9.O-O-O Be7 10.Rhe1 O-O 11.Kb1 Qa5
12.Qd2 Qa6 13.Nd4 Rfc8 14.f4 h6 15.h4 Qc4
16.g4 Kf8 17.f5 hxg5 18.hxg5 Nd7 19.fxe6
Ne5 20.Rh1 fxe6 21.b3 Qb4 22.Rh8 Kf7
23.Qf4 Bf6 24.Rh7 Kg8 25.gxf6 Kxh7 26.Qg5
Rc7 27.Nxe6 Rac8 28.fxg7 Kg8 29.Rh1 Bxe4
30.Rh8 Kf7 31.Nxc7 Qxc3 32.g8=Q[4]
Mikhail Tal vs Robert Eugene Byrne, 1976
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6
5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Bg5
e6 9.O-O-O Be7 10.Rhe1 O-O 11.Qd2 Qa5
12.Nd4 Rac8 13.Kb1 Kh8 14.f4 h6 15.h4
hxg5 16.hxg5 Nxe4 17.Qd3 Bxg5 18.Nxe4
Bxe4 19.Rxe4 Bh6 20.g4 f5 21.Rxe6 Bxf4
22.Nxf5[5]
4.9.1 In the Sicilian Defence
The Wing Gambit in the Sicilian Defence runs 1.e4 c5
2.b4 (see diagram). After Black takes with 2...cxb4,
the usual continuation is 3.a3 bxa3 (3...d5! is more
recently considered superior, when White must avoid
4.exd5 Qxd5 5.axb4?? Qe5+ winning the rook, a blun-
der actually seen in tournament play in Shirazi–Peters,
Berkeley 1984; instead 5.Nf3 is better) and now the main
line is 4.Nxa3, though 4.Bxa3 and 4.d4 are also seen. It
is also possible to decline (or at least delay acceptance of)
the gambit with 2...d5.
For his pawn, White gets quicker development and a cen-
tral advantage, but it is not generally considered one of
White’s better choices against the Sicilian and it is virtu-
ally never seen at the professional level. Amongst ama-
teurs it is more common, though still not so popular as
other systems.

4.8.4 See also After Black’s 2...cxb4, another popular third move
alternative for White is 3.d4. GMs George Koltanowski,
• List of chess openings David Bronstein and World Champion Alexander
Alekhine have played this line.
• List of chess openings named after people
White can postpone the gambit one move by playing the
Wing Gambit Deferred, playing 2.Nf3 followed by 3.b4.
4.8.5 References The deferred Wing Gambit is considered to be best when
black responds 2...e6.[1] The Portsmouth Gambit runs
[1] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Oxford 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.b4, where Black is disinclined to refuse the
Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, gambit due to the positional threat 3.b5, displacing the
p. 75, ISBN 0-19-280049-3 knight and disrupting Black’s smooth development.
[2] The Chekhover Variation chessgames.com Chess Open- It is also possible to prepare the gambit by playing 2.a3!?
ing Explorer followed by 3.b4.
88
4.9.2 In other openings
There is one Wing Gambit in the French Defence; 1.e4 e6
2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4, although this is quite rare. A re-
lated idea is found in the Caro-Kann Defence after 1.e4
c6 2.Ne2 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4, however Black can immedi-
ately achieve an advantage by playing 4...d4! (this move is
also strong in the second French line given above). Even
rarer is the Wing Gambit in the Bishop’s Opening, 1.e4
e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4, which has some resemblance to the
Evans Gambit.
There are several other “Wing Gambits” in various open- advantage of the fact that Black can hardly find a suitable
ings, but they are very rare, and not as notable as the open- place to post their queen.
ings mentioned above:
• In the English Opening: 1.c4 c5 2.b4, or 1.c4 b5
• In the Marshall Gambit of the Scandinavian De- 4.10.1
fence: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 g6 4.c4 b5
• In the Ware Opening: 1.a4 b5 2.axb5 Bb7
4.9.3 Illustrative Games
Lutz vs. De Firmian, Biel 1993: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3
d5! 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e5 6.axb4 Bxb4 7.c3 Be7 8.Na3
Nf6 9.Nb5 Qd8 10.Nxe5 Nc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qf3 Bd7
13.Nd4 0-0 14.Ba6 Qc7 15.h3 c5 16.Nf5 Qe5 17.Ne3
Bd6 18.Be2 Bc7 19.Nc4 Qe6 20.Qe3 Ne4 21.0-0 Rfe8
22.Bd3 f5 23.Re1 Qd5 24.Qf3 Bb5 25.Nb2 c4 26.Bf1
Bb6 27.Nd1 f4 28.Qxf4 Nxf2 29.Ne3 Nd3 30.Bxd3
Qxd3 31.Kh1 Re4 32.Qg5 Bc6 33.Bb2 Qxd2 34.Rad1
Rxe3 25.Rxd2 Rxh3# 0-1 [2]
4.9.4 References
[1] Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Joe Gallagher, 1994, ISBN
9780805035759
[2] Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Joe Gallagher, 1994, ISBN
9780805035759
4.9.5 External links
• Opening Report: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.d4 d5 (328
games)
• The Portsmouth Gambit
• A little known retreat in the Wing Gambit
4.10 Smith-Morra Gambit
In chess, the Smith–Morra Gambit (or simply Morra
Gambit) is an opening gambit against the Sicilian De-
fence distinguished by the moves:
CHAPTER 4. E4 OPENINGS – SICILIAN DEFENCE
1. e4 c5
2. d4 cxd4
3. c3
White sacrifices a pawn to develop quickly and create at-
tacking chances. In exchange for the gambit pawn, White
has a piece developed after 4.Nxc3 and a pawn in the cen-
ter, while Black has an extra pawn and a central pawn
majority. The plan for White is straightforward and con-
sists of placing the bishop on c4 to attack the f7-square,
and controlling both the c- and d-files with rooks, taking
The Smith–Morra is uncommon in grandmaster games,
but is popular at club level.[4]
History
The Smith–Morra is named after Pierre Morra (1900–
1969) from France,[5] and Ken Smith (1930–1999) of the
Dallas Chess Club.[6] Hence in Europe the name Morra
Gambit is preferred; names like Tartakower Gambit and
Matulovic Gambit have disappeared.
Morra published a booklet and several articles about the
Smith–Morra around 1950. Smith wrote a total of nine
books and forty-nine articles about the gambit. When
Smith participated in an international tournament against
several top grandmasters in San Antonio in 1972, he es-
sayed the opening three times, against Donald Byrne,
Larry Evans, and Henrique Mecking, but lost all three
games.
4.10.2 Continuations overview
Black has a wide choice of reasonable defences after 1.e4
c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3. White sometimes plays 2.Nf3 and
3.c3, which depending on Black’s response may rule out
certain lines.
4.10.3 Morra Gambit Accepted: 3...dxc3
4.Nxc3
• Classical Main line: 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-
0 Nf6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Rd1 e5 10.h3 or 10.Be3
• Scheveningen setup: 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-
0 Nf6 (or Be7) 8.Qe2 a6 9.Rd1 Qc7 (probably in-
ferior Qa5) 10.Bf4 (10.Bg5) Be7
• Siberian Variation: 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 Nf6 and
7...Qc7, with the idea being after 7.0-0 Qc7 8.Qe2
Ng4!, 9.h3?? loses to the famous "Siberian Trap"
9...Nd4!, winning the queen. If instead White plays
9.Rd1, preventing 9...Nd4, black can continue with
9...Bc5 with a clearly better game.
4.10. SMITH-MORRA GAMBIT 89

• Nge7 variations: 4...Nc6 (or 4...e6) 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 4.10.7 References

a6 (Nge7) 7.0-0 Nge7 (d6 8.Qe2 Nge7 9.Bg5 h6)
8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3
• 6...a6 Defence: 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 eventu-
ally 7...Bg4
• Fianchetto: 4...g6 (4...Nc6 5.Nf3 g6 allows 6.h4!?)
5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Bc4 Nc6
• Chicago Defence: 4...e6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 b5 7.Bb3
d6 8.0-0 and Black plays ...Ra7 at some stage
[1] Krnic, Zdenko; Matanovic, Aleksandar (2002). En-
cyclopaedia of Chess Openings, volume B (4th ed.).
Belgrade: Chess Informant. ISBN 978-8672970500.
[2] “Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Classification Code
Index” (PDF). Chess Informant. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
[3] Matanovic, Aleksandar, ed. (2013). Chess Informant
118. Belgrade: Chess Informant. p. 195. ISBN 978-
8672970685.
[4] http://chess.about.com/od/openings/ss/Sicilian_2.htm

• Early queenside fianchetto: 4...e6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 [5] Chess Notes by Edward Winter, entry 3953 (“Morra”)
b5 7.Bb3 Bb7
[6] Kenneth Ray Smith (1930–1999) Obituary at the US
Chess Federation
4.Bc4
4.10.8 Further reading
• This line is similar to the Danish Gambit: 4...cxb2
5.Bxb2 • Flesch, János (1981). The Morra (Smith) Gambit.
Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-2188-6.

4.10.4 Morra Gambit Declined • Burgess, Graham (1994). Winning with the Smith-
Morra Gambit. Batsford. ISBN 0805035745.
• Advance Variation: 3...d3
• Pálkövi, Jószef (2000). Morra Gambit. Caissa
Chess Books.
• First transposition to the Alapin: 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nd5
• Langrock, Hannes (2006). The Modern Morra
• Second transposition to the Alapin: 3...d5 4.exd5 Gambit. Russell Enterprises. ISBN 1-888690-32-
Qxd5 (Nf6) 5.cxd4 1.

The latter has a bad reputation, as square c3 is free for

the knight. Still 5...Nf6 (5...e5; 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 e5) 6.Nf3 4.10.9 External links
e6 7.Nc3 Qd6 is likely to transpose to a main line of the
• The Smith–Morra gambit
Alapin: 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 e6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3
Nc6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6.

4.10.5 See also

• Another anti-Sicilian gambit is the Wing Gambit

(1.e4 c5 2.b4).

• List of chess openings

• List of chess openings named after people

4.10.6 Notes
[1] The latest (2002) edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings, volume B, classifies all lines beginning 1.e4 c5
2.d4, including the Smith-Morra Gambit, under B20.[1]
However, Chess Informant gives B21 as the code for 1.e4
c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 in its guide to the ECO opening codes
provided on its website[2] and has classified games featur-
ing the Smith-Morra Gambit under B21 in its more recent
publications.[3]
Chapter 5

e4 Openings – Other variations

5.1 Bishop’s Opening Chess Openings concludes that the Bishop’s Opening leads
to equality with best play by both sides,[4] and notes that,
The Bishop’s Opening is a chess opening that begins “Among modern players only Bent Larsen has played it
with the moves: much, but even Kasparov gave it a whirl (winning against
Bareev).”[5]
1. e4 e5
2. Bc4
5.1.2 Main variations
White attacks Black’s f7-square and prevents Black from
advancing his d-pawn to d5. By ignoring the beginner’s Because White’s second move makes no direct threat,
maxim “develop knights before bishops", White leaves Black has many possible responses on the second move.
his f-pawn unblocked, allowing the possibility of playing As shown below, the Bishop’s Opening offers opportuni-
f2–f4. ties to transpose to several other open games.

The f2–f4 push gives the Bishop’s Opening an affinity

with the King’s Gambit and the Vienna Game, two open- Berlin Defense: 2...Nf6
ings that share this characteristic. The Bishop’s Open-
ing can transpose into either of these openings, and in Probably Black’s most popular second move is 2...Nf6,
particular a favorable variation of the King’s Gambit, but forcing White to decide how to defend his e-pawn.
with care Black can circumvent this. Transpositions into Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3
Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defense and other open-
ings are also possible.
After 3.d3 Black must be careful not to drift into an infe-
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) assigns rior variation of the King’s Gambit Declined. One con-
Bishop’s Opening the codes C23 and C24. tinuation that avoids this pitfall is 3...c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3
Bd6. Also possible is 3...d6 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxf4 Be6! neu-
tralizing White’s king bishop.
5.1.1 History and use
White sometimes chooses the Bishop’s Opening move or-
The Bishop’s Opening is one of the oldest openings to der to transpose into the Giuoco Piano while prevent-
be analyzed; it was studied by Lucena and Ruy Lopez. ing Black from playing Petrov’s Defense. For example,
Later it was played by Philidor. Larsen was one of the 2...Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 reaches the quiet Giuoco Pi-
few grandmasters to play it often, after first using it at anissimo.
the 1964 Interzonal Tournament. Although the Bishop’s The Urusov Gambit is named after Russian Prince
Opening is uncommon today, it has been used occasion- Sergey Semyonovich Urusov (1827–1897). After 2...Nf6
ally as a surprise by players such as Kasparov. Nunn uses 3.d4 exd4 (3...Nxe4 4.dxe5 gives White some advantage)
it to avoid Petrov’s Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6),[1] and 4.Nf3, Black can transpose to the Two Knights Defense
Lékó played it in the 2007 World Championship against with 4...Nc6, or can decline the gambit with 4...d5 5.exd5
Kramnik, known to consistently play the Petrov. Bb4+ 6.c3 (6.Kf1 is recommended by Michael Goeller,
Weaver Adams in his classic work “White to Play and winning a pawn at the expense of castling rights) 6...Qe7+
Win” claimed that the Bishop’s Opening was a win for 7.Be2 dxc3, when 8.bxc3 and 8.Nxc3 both offer approx-
White by force from the second move.[2] However, he imately equal chances. Instead, Black can accept the
was unable to prove this by defeating players stronger gambit with 4...Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 (5...Nd6? 6.0-0 gives
than himself, and later abandoned the Bishop’s Opening White an overwhelming attack), and White will continue
for the Vienna Game, making the same claim.[3] Grand- with Nc3, Bg5, Qh4, 0-0-0, and usually intends to meet
master Nick de Firmian, in the 14th edition of Modern ...0-0 and ...h6 with the piece sacrifice Bxh6, exposing the

90
5.1. BISHOP’S OPENING 91

black king. Black has a solid position with no clear weak- Classical Defense: 2...Bc5
nesses but White has attacking chances and piece activity
as compensation for the pawn. The Urusov Gambit is also 3.d3
occasionally reached via the Petrov Defence after 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4.
The Classical Defense is Black’s symmetrical response,
The Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit is named after English 2...Bc5. White can then transpose into the Vienna Game
player and chess writer Samuel Boden and Lionel Kieser- (3.Nc3) or the Giuoco Piano (3.Nf3), or remain in the
itzky. Boden published the first analysis of it in 1851. Bishop’s Opening with the Wing Gambit (3.b4) or the
Opening theoreticians consider that after 2...Nf6 3.Nf3 Philidor Variation (3.c3). The main line of the Phili-
Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.dxc3 f6, White’s attack is not quite dor Variation runs: 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5! 6.
worth a pawn. The game may continue 6.0-0 Nc6 (not exf6 dxc4 7. Qh5 0-0 8. Qxc5 Re8+ 9. Ne2 d3 10.Be3
6...Be7? 7.Nxe5! with a tremendous attack, but 6...d6 is Transpositions into the King’s Gambit Declined and the
also playable) 7.Nh4 g6 8.f4 f5 9.Nf3 (9.Nxf5? d5!) e4 Giuoco Piano are also possible after 3.d3.
10.Ng5 (10.Ne5 Qe7! threatening Qc5+ is strong) Bc5+.
The Wing Gambit results in positions similar to those in
In practice, Black’s lack of development and inability to
the Evans Gambit. It can transpose into the Evans Gam-
castle kingside can prove very problematic.
bit, for instance by 3.b4 Bxb4 4.c3 Ba5 5.Nf3 Nc6.
Safer for Black are Paul Morphy’s solid 5...c6 6.Nxe5 d5,
Black’s most energetic response to the Philidor Variation
returning the pawn with equality, and 4...Nc6!? (instead
is the Lewis Countergambit, 3.c3 d5, named for the
of 4...Nxc3) 5.0-0 (5.Nxe4 d5) Nxc3 6.dxc3 Qe7! when,
English player and author William Lewis (1787–1870)
according to Bobby Fischer in My 60 Memorable Games,
[6] who published analysis of the line in 1834.
“White has no compensation for the Pawn.”
Among amateurs, 3.Qf3 and 3.Qh5 are also popular,
Black can also decline the pawn with 3...Nc6, transpos-
threatening an immediate scholar’s mate. But the threat
ing into the Two Knights Defense. He must, however, be
is easily met (e.g. 3.Qh5 Qe7) and the moves are consid-
willing to offer a gambit himself after 4.Ng5. White may
ered inferior since they hamper White’s development or
invite an offshoot of the Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit with
leave the queen exposed, leading to loss of tempo.
4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Nc3.
Irregular move orders are 2.Nc3 (Vienna) Nf6 3.Bc4
Nxe4 4.Nf3 and 2.Nf3 Nf6 (Russian or Petrov Defence) Summary after 2...Bc5
3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nf3.
• 3.b4 (Wing Gambit)

Summary after 2...Nf6 Greco Gambit 3.f4 • 3.c3 (Philidor Variation)

• 3...d5 (Lewis Countergambit)

• 3.Nc3 (Vienna Game, by transposition) • 3...d6
• 3.d3 • 3...Nf6

• 3.d4 (Ponziani’s Gambit) • 3.Nc3 (Vienna Game, by transposition)

• 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 (Center Game, by trans- • 3.d3

position)
• 3.Nf3 Nc6 (Giuoco Piano, by transposition)
• 3...exd4 4.Nf3 (Urusov Gambit)
• 4...Bc5 5.0-0 Nc6 (Max Lange Attack, by • 3.Qg4
transposition)
• 4...Nc6 (Two Knights Defense, by trans- Other Black responses
position)
• 4...Nxe4 5.Qxd4 (Urusov Gambit Ac- Philidor Counterattack 2...c6
cepted)

• 3.Nf3 (Petrov’s Defense, by transposition)
• 3...Nxe4 4.Nc3 (Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit)
• 3.f4 (Greco Gambit)
• 3...Nxe4 4.d3 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6 or 5...e4
• 3...exf4 (King’s Gambit, by transposition)
Other Black second moves are rarely played. If Black
tries to transpose into the Hungarian Defense with
2...Be7?, then 3.Qh5 wins a pawn.
The Calabrian Countergambit (2...f5?!) is named after
Greco’s homeland, Calabria. It is considered dubious, as
the line recommended by Carl Jaenisch, 3.d3 Nf6 4.f4 d6
5.Nf3, gives White the advantage.
92 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

Summary of other Black responses 5.2 Portuguese Opening

• 2...c6 (Philidor Counterattack) The Portuguese Opening is a chess opening that begins
with the moves:
• 2...Nc6

• 2...d6 1. e4 e5
2. Bb5
• 2...f5?! (Calabrian Countergambit)

• 3.d3 (Jaenisch Variation) The Portuguese is an uncommon opening. In contrast to

the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5), by delaying
Nf3, White leaves the f-pawn free to move and retains the
5.1.3 References possibility of playing f2–f4. The trade-off is that White’s
lack of pressure on e5 leaves Black with a freer hand.
Notes

[1] Reuben, Stewart (1992). Chess Openings — Your Choice!.
Cadogan Chess. p. 59. ISBN 1-85744-070-6.
[2] Adams, Weaver (1939). White to Play and Win. David
McKay Company. pp. 9–12.
[3] Evans, Larry (1970). Chess Catechism. Simon and Schus-
ter. pp. 147, 153. ISBN 978-0-671-21531-6.
[4] de Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings. David
McKay Company. pp. 144–45. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
[5] Id. at 143.
[6] Fischer, Bobby (1972). My 60 Memorable Games. Faber
and Faber. pp. 280–81. ISBN 0-571-09987-4.
Bibliography
5.2.1 Lines
If Black replies 2...Nf6, White can try a gambit with
3.d4. Another Black reply is 2...Nc6, possibly anticipat-
ing White will transpose into the Ruy Lopez with 3.Nf3,
but a more popular try is to kick White’s bishop with
2...c6. The game might continue 3.Ba4 Nf6 and now
White can play 4.Nc3 or 4.Qe2.
Graham Burgess remarks that it looks like a Ruy Lopez
where White has forgotten to play 2.Nf3. However, the
Portuguese is not as bad or nonsensical as it first appears,
and Black should proceed carefully.
5.2.2 See also
• List of chess openings

• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox- • List of chess openings named after places
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
5.2.3 References
• Lane, Gary (2004). The Bishop’s Opening Ex-
plained. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-8917-0.
• Burgess, Graham (2000). The Mammoth Book of
• Weaver W. Adams, White to Play and Win, ISBN Chess. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
978-0-923891-83-1

5.2.4 External links

5.1.4 External links
• 227 Games at Chess.com
• Goeller, Michael. The Bishop’s Opening.

• Harding, Tim (August 1998). The Kibitzer: What

Exactly is the Bishop’s Opening?. ChessCafe.com.
5.3 King’s Gambit
• Harding, Tim (September 1998). The Kibitzer: The The King’s Gambit is a chess opening that begins with
Eternal Appeal Of The Urusov Gambit. Chess- the moves:
Cafe.com.
1. e4 e5
• Harding, Tim (October 1998). The Kibitzer: Is the
Urusov Gambit Sound?. ChessCafe.com. 2. f4
5.3. KING’S GAMBIT 93

White offers a pawn to divert the Black e-pawn. If Black
accepts the gambit, White has two main plans. The first
is to play d4 and Bxf4, regaining the gambit pawn with
central domination. The alternative plan is to play Nf3
and Bc4 followed by 0-0, when the semi-open f-file allows
White to barrel down onto the weakest point in Black’s
position, the pawn on f7. Theory has shown that in order
for Black to maintain the gambit pawn, he may well be
forced to weaken his kingside, with moves such as ...g5
or odd piece placement (e.g. ...Nf6–h5). A downside to
the King’s Gambit is that White weakens his own King’s
position, exposing it to the latent threat of ...Qh4+ (or
...Be7–h4+). With a Black pawn on f4, White cannot
usually respond to the check with g3, but if the King is
forced to move then it also loses the right to castle.
The King’s Gambit is one of the oldest documented open-
ings, as it was examined by the 17th-century Italian chess
player Giulio Cesare Polerio.[1] It is also in an older book
by Luis Ramírez de Lucena.[2]
The King’s Gambit was one of the most popular open-
ings in the 19th century, but is infrequently seen at master
level today, as Black can obtain a reasonable position by
returning the extra pawn to consolidate. There are two
main branches, depending on whether or not Black plays
2...exf4: the King’s Gambit Accepted (KGA) and the
King’s Gambit Declined (KGD).
proved to be actual refutations of the King’s Gambit.
In 2012, an April Fool prank by Chessbase in associa-
tion with Vasik Rajlich—inventor of Rybka—claimed to
have proven to a 99.99999999% certainty that the King’s
Gambit is at best a draw for white.[8][9] In a later post,
owning up to the prank, Rajlich estimated that “we're still
probably a good 25 or so orders of magnitude away from
being able to solve something like the King’s Gambit. If
processing power doubles every 18 months for the next
century, we'll have the resources to do this around the
year 2120, plus or minus a few decades.”[10]
The King’s Gambit is rare in modern grandmaster play,
and even rarer at the top level.[11] A handful of grand-
masters have continued to use it, including Joseph Gal-
lagher, Hikaru Nakamura, Nigel Short, and Alexei Fe-
dorov. It was also part of the arsenal of David Bronstein,
who almost singlehandedly brought the opening back to
respectability in modern play. After him Boris Spassky
beat strong players with it, including Bobby Fischer,[12]
Zsuzsa Polgar,[13] and a famous brilliancy against Bron-
stein himself.[14] At club level, Gallagher’s book Winning
with the King’s Gambit has proven extremely popular, im-
plying that amateurs find the King’s Gambit attractive.[7]
5.3.2 Variations

Black usually accepts the gambit pawn, however two

5.3.1 History methods of declining the gambit, the classical variation
(2...Bc5) and the Falkbeer Counter Gambit (2...d5) are
The King’s Gambit was one of the most popular open- also popular.
ings for over 300 years, and has been played by many of
the strongest players in many of the greatest brilliancies,
including the Immortal Game; nonetheless, players have King’s Gambit Accepted: 2...exf4
held widely divergent views on it. François-André Dan-
ican Philidor (1726–95), the greatest player and theorist The King’s Knight’s Gambit
of his day, wrote that the King’s Gambit should end in
a draw with best play by both sides, stating that “a gam- If Black accepts with 2...exf4, the two main continuations
bit equally well attacked and defended is never a deci- for White are:
sive [game], either on one side or the other.”[3] Writing
over 150 years later, Siegbert Tarrasch, one of the world’s
strongest players in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, • 3.Nf3 – the King Knight’s Gambit
pronounced the opening “a decisive mistake” and wrote
that “it is almost madness to play the King’s Gambit.”[4] • 3.Bc4 – the Bishop’s Gambit
Similarly, future World Champion Bobby Fischer wrote
a famous article, “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”, in which 3.Nf3 is the most common as it develops the knight and
he stated, “In my opinion the King’s Gambit is busted. It prevents 3...Qh4+.
loses by force” and offered his Fischer Defense (3...d6)
as a refutation.[5][6] FM Graham Burgess, in his book The
Mammoth Book of Chess, noted the discrepancy between King’s Knight’s Gambit: 3.Nf3
the King’s Gambit and Wilhelm Steinitz's accumulation
theory. Steinitz had argued that an attack is only justi-
fied when a player has an advantage, and an advantage Classical Variation: 3...g5 The Classical Variation
is only obtainable after the opponent makes a mistake. arises after 3.Nf3 g5, when the main continuations tra-
Since 1...e5 does not look like a blunder, White should ditionally have been 4.h4 (the Paris Attack), and 4.Bc4.
not therefore be launching an attack.[7] However, recently also 4.Nc3 (the Quaade Attack)[15]
None of these pronouncements, however, have been has been played by strong players.
94 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

Allgaier Gambit and Kieseritzky Gambit: 4.h4
After 4.h4 g4 White can choose between 5.Ng5 or
5.Ne5. 5.Ng5 is the Allgaier Gambit,[16] intending
5...h6 6.Nxf7, but is considered dubious by modern the-
ory. Stronger is 5.Ne5, the Kieseritzky Gambit, which
is relatively positional in nature, popularized by Lionel
Kieseritzky in the 1840s. It was used very successfully by
Wilhelm Steinitz, and was used by Boris Spassky to beat
Bobby Fischer in a famous game at Mar del Plata 1960.
This motivated Fischer into developing his own defense
to the King’s Gambit – see “Fischer Defense” below.
Cunningham Defense: 3...Be7 The Cunningham
Defense (3.Nf3 Be7) threatens a check on h4 that can
permanently prevent White from castling; furthermore, if
White does not develop his King’s Bishop immediately,
he would be forced to play Ke2, which hems the Bishop
in. A sample line is 4. Nc3 Bh4+ 5. Ke2 d5 6. Nxd5
Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. d4 Bg4 9. Qd2 (diagram). White
has strong central control with pawns on d4 and e4, while
Black is relying on the White King’s discomfort to com-
pensate.
Sample position in the Cunningham Defense

Muzio Gambit, Salvio Gambit and others: 4.Bc4 g4 To avoid having to play Ke2, 4. Bc4 is White’s most pop-
The extremely sharp Muzio Gambit[17] arises after ular response.[23] Black can play ...Bh4+ anyway, forcing
4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3, where White has gambited 5.Kf1 (else the wild Bertin Gambit, or Three Pawns’
a knight but has three pieces bearing down on f7.[18] Gambit, 5.g3 fxg3 6.0-0 gxh2+ 7.Kh1, played in the
Such wild play is rare in modern chess, but Black must nineteenth century). In modern practice, it is more com-
exercise care in consolidating his position. Perhaps the mon for Black to simply develop instead with 4...Nf6 5.e5
sharpest continuation is the Double Muzio after 6...Qf6 Ng4, known as the Modern Cunningham.
7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+!? leaving white two pieces down in
eight moves, but with a position some masters consider Rook Sacrifice in the Schallopp Defense
having equal chances.[19][20]
Similar lines which may transpose into the Muzio are the
Ghulam Kassim Gambit, 4.Bc4 g4 5.d4, and the Mac- Schallopp Defense: 3...Nf6 The Schallopp Defense
Donnell Gambit, 4.Bc4 g4 5.Nc3. These are generally (3.Nf3 Nf6) – intending 4.e5 Nh5, holding onto the pawn
considered inferior to the Muzio, which has the advantage – is considered somewhat inferior and is rarely played to-
of reinforcing White’s attack along the f-file. day. In one of the lines, White can usually obtain a crush-
Also inferior is the Lolli Gambit 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+?!, ing attack via a rook sacrifice, 4.e5 Nh5 5.d4 g5 6.h4 g4
which leaves White with insufficient compensation for the 7.Ng5 Ng3 8.Bc4! Nxh1 9.Bxf7+ Ke7 10.Nc3 (looking
piece after 5...Kxf7 6.Ne5+ Ke8 7.Qxg4 Nf6 8.Qxf4 d6. for immediate mate at d5, or later via queen at f6) and
Black appears doomed.
The Salvio Gambit, 4.Bc4 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.Kf1, is con-
sidered better for Black due to the insecurity of White’s
king. Black may play safely with 6...Nh6, or counter- Modern Defense: 3...d5 The Modern Defense, or
sacrifice with 6...f3 or 6...Nc6. Abbazia Defense,[24] (3.Nf3 d5) has much the same
idea as the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit, and can in fact
be reached by transposition, e.g. 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4.
Hanstein Gambit and Philidor Gambit: 4.Bc4 Bg7
Black concentrates on gaining piece play and fighting for
A safer alternative to 4...g4 is 4...Bg7, which usually
the initiative rather than keeping the extra pawn. It has
leads to the Hanstein Gambit after 5.d4 d6 6.O-O h6 or
been recommended by several publications as an easy
the Philidor Gambit after 5.h4 h6 6.d4 d6 (other move
way to equalize, although White keeps a slight advan-
orders are possible in each case).
tage due to his extra central pawn and piece activity. If
White captures (4.exd5) then Black may play 4...Nf6 or
Becker Defense: 3...h6 The Becker Defense (3.Nf3 recapture with 4...Qxd5, at which point it becomes the
h6), has the idea of creating a pawn chain on h6, g5, f4 to Scandinavian Variation of KGA.
defend the f4 pawn while avoiding the Kieseritzky Gam-
bit; Black will not be forced to play ...g4 when White
plays to undermine the chain with h4. White has the op- Fischer Defense: 3...d6 Main article: King’s Gambit,
tion of 4.b3, though the main line continues with 4.d4 Fischer Defense
g5 (ECO C37) and will usually transpose to lines of the
Classical Variation after 5.Bc4 Bg7 6.0-0 (ECO C38). “The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it.
In my opinion the King’s Gambit is busted. It loses by
Bonch–Osmolovsky Defense: 3...Ne7 The rarely force.” – R. Fischer, “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”
seen Bonch–Osmolovsky Defense[21] (3.Nf3 Ne7) was The Fischer Defense (3.Nf3 d6), although previously
played by Mark Bluvshtein to defeat former world title known, was advocated by Bobby Fischer after he was
finalist Nigel Short at Montreal 2007,[22] though it has defeated by Boris Spassky in a Kieseritzky Gambit at
never been highly regarded by theory. the 1960 Mar del Plata tournament. Fischer then de-
5.3. KING’S GAMBIT 95

cided to refute the King’s Gambit, and the next year the Other third moves for White Other third moves for
American Chess Quarterly published Fischer’s analysis of White are rarely played. Some of these are:
3...d6, which he called “a high-class waiting move”.[5][6]
The point is that after 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 White cannot con- • 3.Nc3 – the Mason Gambit or Keres Gambit
tinue with 6.Ne5 as in the Kieseritzky Gambit, 6.Ng5
is unsound because of 6...f6! trapping the knight, and • 3.d4 – the Villemson Gambit[27] or Steinitz Gam-
6.Nfd2 blocks the bishop on c1. This leaves the move bit
6.Ng1 as the only option, when after six moves neither • 3.Be2 – the Lesser Bishop’s Gambit or
side has developed a piece. The resulting slightly odd po- Tartakower Gambit
sition (diagram) offers White good attacking chances.[7]
Fischer Defense after 6.Ng1 • 3.Qf3 – the Breyer Gambit or Hungarian Gambit

• 3.h4 – the Stamma Gambit

The main alternative to 4.d4 is 4.Bc4. Play usually con-
tinues 4...h6 5.d4 g5 6.O-O Bg7, transposing into the • 3.Nh3 - the Eisenberg Gambit
Hanstein Gambit, which can also be reached via 3...g5
or 3...h6. King’s Gambit Declined

Black can decline the offered pawn, or offer a

MacLeod Defense: 3...Nc6 Joe Gallagher writes that countergambit.
3.Nf3 Nc6 “has never really caught on, probably because
it does nothing to address Black’s immediate problems.”
Like Fischer’s Defense, it is a waiting move.[25] An obvi- Falkbeer Countergambit: 2...d5 Main article:
ous drawback is that the Nc6 may prove a target for the King’s Gambit, Falkbeer Countergambit
d-pawn later in the opening.
The Falkbeer Countergambit is named after the 19th-
century Austrian master Ernst Falkbeer. It runs 1.e4 e5
Wagenbach Defense: 3...h5 An invention of the Hun- 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4, in which Black sacrifices a pawn in
garian/English player, János Wagenbach. John Shaw return for quick and easy development. It was once con-
writes: “If given the time, Black intends to seal up the sidered good for Black and scored well, but White obtains
kingside with ...h4 followed by ...g5, securing the extra some advantage with the response 4.d3!, and the line fell
pawn on f4 without allowing an undermining h2-h4. The out of favour after the 1930s.
drawback is of course the amount of time required”.[26] A more modern interpretation of the Falkbeer is 2...d5
3.exd5 c6!?, as advocated by Aron Nimzowitsch. Black
is not concerned about pawns and aims for early piece
Bishop’s Gambit 3.Bc4 Of the alternatives to 3.Nf3, activity. White has a better pawn structure and prospects
the most important is the Bishop’s Gambit, 3. Bc4. of a better endgame. The main line continues 4.Nc3 exf4
5.Nf3 Bd6 6.d4 Ne7 7.dxc6 Nbxc6, giving positions anal-
White allows 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1, losing the right to castle, ogous to the Modern Variation of the gambit accepted.
but this loses time for Black after the inevitable Nf3 and
White will develop rapidly.
Classical Defense: 2...Bc5 A common way to de-
Korchnoi and Zak recommend as best for Black 3...Nf6
cline the gambit is with 2...Bc5, the “classical” KGD. The
4.Nc3 c6, or the alternative move order 3...c6 4.Nc3
bishop prevents White from castling and is such a nui-
Nf6. After 5.Bb3 d5 6.exd5 cxd5 7.d4 Bd6 8.Nge2 O-O
sance that White often expends two tempi to eliminate it
9.O-O g5 10.Nxd5 Nc6, Black was somewhat better in
by means of Nc3–a4, to exchange on c5 or b6, whereupon
Spielmann-Bogoljubow, Märisch Ostrau 1923.
he may castle without worry. It also contains an open-
Black’s other main option is 3...d5, returning the pawn ing trap for novices: if White continues with 3.fxe5??
immediately. Play might continue 3...d5 4.Bxd5 Nf6 Black continues 3...Qh4+, in which either the rook is
5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Bxc3 7.dxc3 c6 8.Bc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 lost (4.g3 Qxe4+, forking the rook and king) or White
O-O 10.Bxf4 Nxe4 with an equal position (Bilguer Hand- is checkmated (4.Ke2 Qxe4#). This line often comes
buch, Korchnoi/Zak). about by transposition from lines of the Vienna Game or
3...Nc6!? is relatively untested, but if White plays 4.Nf3 Bishop’s Opening, when White plays f2–f4 before Nf3.
Black can transpose into the Hanstein Gambit after 4...g5
5.d4 Bg7 6.c3 d6 7.O-O h6 (Neil McDonald, 1998). Other 2nd moves Other options in the KGD are possi-
Steinitz’s 3...Ne7 and the countergambit 3...f5 (best met ble, though unusual, such as the Adelaide Countergambit
by 4.Qe2!) are generally considered inferior. 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 f5, advocated by Tony Miles; 2...d6, when
96
after 3.Nf3, best is 3...exf4 transposing to the Fischer De-
fense (though 2...d6 invites White to play 3.d4 instead);
and 2...Nf6 3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5! 5.d4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3
Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf2 with a small endgame advan-
tage, as played in the 1968 game between Bobby Fischer
and Robert Wade in Vinkovci.[28] The greedy 2...Qf6
(known as the Norwalde Variation), intending 3...Qxf4,
is considered dubious. Also dubious are the Keene De-
fense: 2...Qh4+ 3.g3 Qe7 and the Mafia Defense: 1.e4
e5 2.f4 c5.[29]
2...f5?! is among the oldest countergambits in KGD,
known from a game published in 1625 by Gioachino [7] Burgess, Graham (2010), The Mammoth Book of Chess,
Greco.[30] Vincenz Hruby also played it against Mikhail
[31]
Chigorin in 1882. It is nonetheless considered dubi- [8] “Rajlich: Busting the King’s Gambit, this time for sure”.
ous because 3.exf5 with the threat of Qh5+ gives White
a good game. The variation is sometimes named the [9] “The ChessBase April Fools revisited”.
Pantelidakis Countergambit because Grandmaster Larry
Evans answered a question from Peter Pantelidakis of [10] “The ChessBase April Fools revisited”.
Chicago about it in one of his columns in Chess Life and [11] “Medias R4: Carlsen plays the King’s Gambit in the
Review.
5.3.3 ECO
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has ten
codes for the King’s Gambit, C30 through C39.
• C30: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 (King’s Gambit)
• C31: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 (Falkbeer Countergambit)
• C32: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.d3 Nf6 (Morphy,
Charousek, etc.)
• C33: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 (King’s Gambit Accepted)
• C34: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 (King’s Knight’s Gam-
bit)
• C35: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 (Cunningham
Defense)
• C36: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 (Abbazia Defense)
• C37: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 /4.Bc4 g4
5.0-0 (Muzio Gambit)
• C38: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 (Phili-
dor, Hanstein, etc.)
• C39: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 (Allgaier,
Kieseritzky, etc.)
5.3.4 References
[1] Ristoja, Thomas; Aulikki Ristoja (1995). Perusteet.
Shakki (in Finnish). WSOY. p. 58. ISBN 951-0-20505-
2.
[2] Hooper, David; Kenneth, Whyld (1992), The Oxford
Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press,
ISBN 0-19-866164-9
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
[3] Philidor, François-André Danican (2005), Analysis of the
Game of Chess (1777) (2nd ed.), Harding Simple Ltd., p.
67, ISBN 1-84382-161-3
[4] Tarrasch, Siegbert (1938), The Game of Chess, David
McKay, p. 309
[5] Bobby Fischer, “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”, American
Chess Quarterly, Summer 1961, pp. 3–9.
[6] Fischer, Bobby (1961). “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”
(PDF). ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 2009-11-08.
Running Press
King’s Tournament!". Chessbase. Retrieved 31 May
2016.
[12] Spassky vs. Fischer, Mar del Plata 1969
[13] Spassky vs Polgar, Plaza 1988
[14] Spassky vs. Bronstein, USSR Championship 1960
[15] For the origin of the term “Quaade Attack” or “Quaade
Gambit” see "A Chess Gamelet" by Edward Winter, 2014
[16] Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982). Batsford Chess
Openings. American Chess Promotions. pp. 288–89.
ISBN 0-7134-2112-6.
[17] For the origins of the name “Muzio” and how the epony-
mous variation came to be labeled, see Polerio Gambit
[18] Nakamura vs. Andreikin
[19] Peter Millican 1989
[20] Shirov vs. J Lapinski
[21] Named after Soviet national master Mikhail Aleksan-
drovich Bonch-Osmolovsky (1919-1975), also chess the-
orist and arbiter. See Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bonch-
Osmolovsky at ChessGames.com
[22] Short vs. Bluvshtein
[23] “Chess Opening Explorer”. Chessgames.com. Retrieved
7 June 2016.
[24] The name comes from a tournament, played in Abbazia in
1912, in which all the games had to be a King’s Gambit
Accepted. The town, at the time in the Austria-Hungary
empire, is now in modern Croatia
[25] Joe Gallagher, Winning with the King’s Gambit, Henry
Holt, 1993, p. 105. ISBN 0-8050-2631-2.
[26] John Shaw, The King’s Gambit, Quality Chess, 2013, p.
431. ISBN 978-1-906552-71-8.
5.4. FISCHER DEFENSE 97

[27] Named after Martin Villemson (1897-1933) of Pärnu, 5.4.1 History

Estonia, editor of the chess magazine Eesti Maleilm. See
After Bobby Fischer lost a 1960 game[4] at Mar del
Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, Ox-
ford, UK, 1984 Plata to Boris Spassky, in which Spassky played the
[28] Fischer vs. Wade Kieseritzky Gambit, Fischer left in tears[5] and promptly
went to work at devising a new defense to the King’s
[29] King’s Gambit: Declined, Mafia Defense, Chess- Gambit. In Fischer’s 1961 article, “A Bust to the King’s
Games.com Gambit”, he claimed, “In my opinion the King’s Gam-
[30] anonymous vs. Greco, ChessGames.com bit is busted. It loses by force.”[6] Fischer concluded the
article with the famous line, “Of course White can al-
[31] Chigorin vs. Hruby, Vienna 1882, 365chess.com
ways play differently, in which case he merely loses dif-
ferently. (Thank you, Weaver Adams!)"[7] The article be-
5.3.5 Further reading came famous.[8][9]
Remarkably, Fischer later played the King’s Gambit him-
• Korchnoi, Victor; Zak, V. G. (1974). King’s Gambit. self with great success,[10] including winning all three
Batsford. ISBN 9780713429145. tournament games in which he played it.[11][12][13] How-
• Estrin, Yakov; Glazkov, I. B. (1982). Play the King’s ever, he played the Bishop’s Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4
Gambit. ISBN 978-0080268736. 3.Bc4) rather than the King’s Knight Gambit (3.Nf3), the
only line that he analyzed in his article.
• Schiller, Eric (1989). Who’s Afraid of the King’s
Gambit Accepted?. Thinkers Pr Inc / Chessco. ISBN
978-0931462900. 5.4.2 Ideas behind the opening
• Gallagher, Joe (1993). Winning With the King’s Fischer called 3...d6 “a high-class waiting move”.[14] It
Gambit. Henry Holt. ISBN 978-0805026313. allows Black to hold the gambit pawn with ...g5 (un-
• McDonald, Neil (1998). The King’s Gambit. Bats- less White plays the immediate 4.h4) while avoiding the
ford. ISBN 978-0-7134-8451-9. Kieseritzky Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4
5.Ne5). Fischer asserted that 3...g5 “is inexact because it
• Johansson, Thomas; Wallin, Maria (Illustrator) gives White drawing chances” after 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6
(2005). The Fascinating King’s Gambit. Trafford 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4 8.Bxf4 Bg7 9.c3! (improving on
on Demand. ISBN 9781412046473. Spassky’s 9.Nc3) Qe7 10.Qe2 Bf5 11.Nd2, which, ac-
cording to Fischer, “leads to an ending where Black’s ex-
tra pawn is neutralized by White’s stranglehold on the
5.3.6 External links dark squares, especially [f4]".[14]
• The Bishop’s Gambit After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 the most common re-
sponse is 4.d4.[15] If White now tries to force transpo-
• Not quite winning with the Allgaier Gambit
sitions to Becker Defense (3...h6) or Classical Defense
• The Double Muzio (3...g5) positions, then White can end up in difficulties.
Fischer analyzed 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 f6 7.Nh3 gxh3
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 (26248 games) 8.Qh5+ Kd7 9.Bxf4 Qe8! 10.Qf3 Kd8 “and with King
and Queen reversed, Black wins easily”.[14]

5.4 Fischer Defense Another popular move is 4.Bc4. Fischer recommended

4...h6 in response, which he dubbed the “Berlin Defence
Deferred”.[14] Black’s third and fourth moves stop the
The Fischer Defense to the King’s Gambit is a chess white knight on f3 from moving to the two dangerous
opening variation that begins with the moves: squares e5 and g5.
1. e4 e5 A quite recent idea is 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3. White intends to
leave the bishop on f1 for a while, play an improved ver-
2. f4 exf4
sion of the Hanstein Gambit (3...g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 and later
3. Nf3 d6 g2–g3), and, after forcing Black’s f-pawn to move, de-
velop the queenside with Be3, Qd2, and 0-0-0.[16]
Although 3...d6 was previously known,[1] it did not be-
come a major variation until Fischer advocated it in a fa-
mous 1961 article in the first issue of the American Chess 5.4.3 See also
Quarterly.[2][3]
• List of chess openings
In the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, the Fischer De-
fense is given the code C34. • List of chess openings named after people
98 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

5.4.4 References In this aggressive countergambit, Black disdains the pawn

offered as a sacrifice, instead opening the centre to ex-
[1] For example, George H. D. Gossip and S. Lipschütz noted ploit White's weakness on the kingside. After the stan-
that 3...d6 was “a move advised by Stamma, and which dard capture, 3.exd5, Black may reply with 3...exf4,
Mr. Löwenthal thinks may be safely adopted”, and that
transposing into the King’s Gambit Accepted, 3...e4, or
“the game is even” after 4.Bc4 or 4.d4. G. H. D. Gos-
the more modern 3...c6.
sip and S. Lipschütz, The Chess-Player’s Manual (3rd ed.
1902), David McKay, p. 491. OCLC 3727518. A well known blunder in this opening is White’s reply
3.fxe5??, which after 3...Qh4+, either loses material af-
[2] Bobby Fischer, “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”, American
Chess Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Summer 1961), pp. 3–9.
ter 4.g3 Qxe4+, forking the king and rook, or severely
exposes the white king to the black pieces after 4.Ke2
[3] A Bust to the King’s Gambit. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved Qxe4+ 5.Kf2 Bc5+.
on 2009-11-16.
The opening bears the name of Austrian master Ernst
[4] Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer (1960) Falkbeer, who played it in an 1851 game against Adolf
Anderssen.[1] The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
[5] Carl Schreck; Moscow Patzer: A Bread Run With the
Great Bronstein {http://carlschreck.com/displayArticle.
(ECO) codes for the Falkbeer Countergambit are C31
php?article_id=91, which cites: http://rsport.netorn.ru/ and C32.
ech/khariton/bron2.htm

[6] Fischer, p. 4. 5.5.1 Old Main line: 3...e4

[7] Fischer, p. 9. Fischer was alluding to a statement by
Adams, author of the controversial book White to Play andIn this variation, Black’s compensation for the sacrificed
Win, who famously claimed that White won by force with pawn primarily consists of his lead in development, cou-
best play, and that if Black played differently from the pled with the exposure of White’s king. A typical line
lines given by Adams, he “merely loses differently”. may run: 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3 Bc5, where Black
aims for the weakness on f2. In Maehrisch-Ostrau 1923,
[8] Nick de Firmian refers to “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”
a game between Rudolf Spielmann and Siegbert Tarrasch
as “Bobby Fischer’s famous article”. Nick de Firmian,
Modern Chess Openings (15th edition), McKay Chess Li-
continued: 7.Qe2 Bf5 (this was condemned by the Hand-
brary, 2008, p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. buch des Schachspiels because of White’s next, though
Black had already got into difficulties in the game Réti–
[9] Andrew Soltis calls it “a celebrated article”. Andrew Breyer, Budapest 1917, where 7...f5 8.Nfd2 Bf2+ 9.Kd1
Soltis, in Karsten Müller, Bobby Fischer: The Career and Qxd5 10.Nc3 was played) 8.g4?! (in retrospect, pru-
Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion, dent was 8.Nc3) 8...0-0! 9.gxf5 Re8 and Black has a
Russell Enterprises, Inc., 2009, p. 29. ISBN 978-1-
tremendous position, as he is bound to regain material
888690-68-2.
and White’s positional deficiencies will remain.[2]
[10]
This line fell out of favour after World War II, as Black
[11] Fischer–Evans, 1963–64 U.S. Championship. Chess- encountered difficulties, with players eventually turning
Games.com. Retrieved on 2009-02-16. to the next idea.
[12] Fischer–Minic, Vinkovci 1968. ChessGames.com. Re-
trieved on 2009-02-16.
5.5.2 Nimzowitsch Counter Gambit: 3...c6
[13] Fischer–Wade, Vinkovci 1968. ChessGames.com. Re-
trieved on 2009-02-16. This has become the most commonly played move af-
ter 3.exd5, with its most notable advocate being John
[14] Fischer, p. 5.
Nunn. It is usually attributed to Aron Nimzowitsch, who
[15] successfully played it in Spielmann–Nimzowitsch, Mu-
nich 1906.[3] However, Frank Marshall actually intro-
[16] http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?
duced the move to master play at Ostend 1905, defeat-
num=1144000928/15
ing Richard Teichmann in 34 moves.[4][5] Annotating that
game in his 1914 book Marshall’s Chess “Swindles”, Mar-
shall described his 3...c6 as, “An innovation.”[6]
5.5 Falkbeer Countergambit
Although Black won both of those games, 3...c6 lan-
guished in obscurity for many years thereafter. White can
The Falkbeer Countergambit is a chess opening that
respond with 4.Qe2, despite the drastic defeat inflicted on
begins:
the young Alexander Alekhine by Paul Johner at Carlsbad
1911, although 4.Nc3 exf4 is much more common. The
1. e4 e5 resulting positions are analogous to the Modern Defence
2. f4 d5 of the King’s Gambit Accepted, in which White strives to
5.6. RICE GAMBIT
utilise his 4–2 queenside pawn majority, with Black rely-
ing on his piece activity and cramping pawn at f4 to play
against White’s king. Theory has not reached a definitive
verdict, but the resulting positions are believed to offer
Black more chances than 3...e4.
5.5.3 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
5.5.4 References
[1] Adolf Anderssen vs Ernst Falkbeer, Berlin 1851.
[2] Rudolf Spielmann vs Siegbert Tarrasch, Maehrisch-
Ostrau 1923.
[3] Rudolf Spielmann vs Aron Nimzowitsch, Munich 1906.
[4] Edward Winter, Chess Note 6792 (published 2010/10/17).
[5] Richard Teichmann vs Frank James Marshall, 1905.
[6] Marshall’s Chess “Swindles”, American Chess Bulletin,
1914, p. 119.
5.5.5 External links
• Falkbeer Countergambit video and analysis
• Takchess Chess Improvement – The Spirit of the
Falkbeer Countergambit KGD 5.6.3
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 (4297 games)
• Edward Winter, Falkbeer Counter-Gambit (pub-
lished 2010/10/17). List of pre-World War II mag-
azine references to the Falkbeer.
5.6 Rice Gambit
The Rice Gambit is a chess opening that arises from the
King’s Gambit Accepted. An offshoot of the Kieseritzky
Gambit, it is characterized by the moves 1. e4 e5 2. f4
exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5
Bd6 8. 0-0 (instead of the normal 8.d4). White offers
the sacrifice of the knight on e5 in order to get his king to
safety and prepare a rook to join the attack against Black’s
underdeveloped position.
99
5.6.1 History
The Rice Gambit was heavily promoted by wealthy
German-born, American businessman Isaac Rice to-
wards the end of the 19th century. He sponsored numer-
ous theme tournaments where the diagram position be-
came the starting point of every game played. Such giants
of the chess world as Emanuel Lasker, Mikhail Chigorin,
Carl Schlechter, Frank Marshall, and David Janowski
were among the participants.[1] These events stretched
from Monte Carlo, Saint Petersburg, and Ostend, to
Brooklyn and Trenton Falls.[1] In a 1905 Pillsbury Na-
tional Correspondence Chess Association event, 230 am-
ateurs played the gambit by mail.[1] So obsessed was Rice
with his pet line, he formed The Rice Gambit Asso-
ciation in 1904, at his home in New York.[2] With Dr.
Lasker as Secretary, the Association even published a
book of all the games played in the theme tournaments.[2]
Concrete analysis has long since shown the gambit to
be “neither good nor necessary”, so it has been aban-
doned in serious play and stands only as “a grotesque
monument to a rich man’s vanity”.[3] The Encyclopedia
of Chess Openings (1997) analyzes 8...Bxe5 9.Re1 Qe7
10.c3 Nh5 11.d4 Nd7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.b3 0-0 14.Ba3
Nf3+ 15.gxf3 Qxh4 16.Re5 Bf5 (or 16...Qg3=) 17.Nd2
Qg3+ 18.Kf1 Qh2 19.Bxf8 g3 20.Bc5 g2+ 21.Ke1 Qh4+
(or 21...g1=Q 22.Bxg1 Qxg1+ 23.Bf1 Ng3 with an un-
clear position) 22.Ke2 Ng3+ 23.Kf2 Ne4+ with a draw
by perpetual check, attributing this analysis to José Raúl
Capablanca, Amos Burn, and Edward Lasker.[4]
5.6.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
References
[1] Soltis 1978, p. 165.
[2] Sunnucks 1970, p. 404.
[3] Hooper & Whyld 1996, Rice Gambit, p. 340.
[4] Matanović 1997 (Vol C), p. 209, n. 28.
Bibliography
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion To Chess. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0192800493.
• Matanović, Aleksandar, ed. (1997). Encyclopaedia
of Chess Openings. C (3rd ed.). Yugoslavia: Chess
Informant. ISBN 86-7297-035-7.
• Soltis, Andy (1978). Chess to Enjoy. Stein and Day.
ISBN 0-8128-6059-4.
100 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

• Sunnucks, Anne (1970). The Encyclopaedia of 3.Qxd4 Nc6

Chess. Hale. ISBN 0709110308.
The nearly universal sequence of moves in the Center
Game is 3.Qxd4 Nc6 (ECO code C22). Now White has
5.6.4 External links a choice of retreat squares for the queen. Although 4.Qa4
corresponds to a fairly commonly played variation of the
• Edward Winter, Professor Isaac Rice and the Rice Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5),
Gambit (2006) it is rarely played in the Center Game because tournament
experience has not been favorable for White in this line.
• Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 The best move for the queen seems to be 4.Qe3, known as
5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.0-0 (178 games) Paulsen’s Attack. White intends to castle Queen’s side in
this line. Black usually continues 4...Nf6 when a typical
line continues 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0 7.0-0-0 Re8. White
5.7 Center Game may try to complicate play by means of the pawn sacri-
fice 8.Qg3!? intending 8...Rxe4 9.a3! - Shabalov's move.
Black’s best reply seems to be the quiet 9...Ba5. Even
The Center Game is a chess opening that begins with the though this line gives White some compensation for the
moves: pawn, it is probably fine for Black.[1]
A more solid option for Black is the natural 5...Be7! in-
1. e4 e5 tending d7-d5 (sometimes even after White plays 6.Bc4),
2. d4 exd4 opening up lines as soon as possible. Black also seems to
get a good game with 4...g6, and 4...Bb4+ has been played
successfully as well.
The game usually continues 3.Qxd4 Nc6, developing with
a gain of tempo due to the attack on the white queen.
(Note that 3.c3 is considered a separate opening: the 3.Nf3 or 3.Bc4
Danish Gambit.)
Postponing recapture of the queen pawn is a standard
The Center Game is an old opening. It was mostly aban-
idea in the Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6),
doned by 1900 because no advantage could be demon-
but 3.Nf3 is less commonly played in the Center Game.
strated for White. Jacques Mieses, Savielly Tartakower
Black can safely transpose to the Scotch Game, Petrov’s
and Rudolf Spielmann seemed to be the last strong play-
Defense or the Philidor Defense, or play a line recom-
ers who would adopt it. The Center Game was rarely
mended by Alekhine, 3...Bc5 4.Nxd4 Nf6 and now 5.e5
played by elite players until Shabalov revived it in the
would be met with 5...Qe7. Similar ideas are possible
1980s. Later, Alexei Shirov, Michael Adams, Judit Pol-
after 3.Bc4, which is also uncommon.
gár and Alexander Morozevich also contributed to the
theory of the Center Game by forcing re-evaluation of
lines long thought to favor Black. In recent years, the 3.f4?! (Halasz Gambit)
young player Ian Nepomniachtchi has also experimented
with it. The Halasz Gambit (3.f4?!) is another rare try. Although
White succeeds in eliminating Black’s e-pawn and open- the move dates back to at least 1840, it has been cham-
ing the d-file, but at the cost of moving the queen early pioned more recently by the Hungarian correspondence
and allowing Black to develop with tempo with 3...Nc6. chess player Dr György Halasz. The gambit [2]
seems dubi-
In White’s favor, after 4.Qe3, the most commonly played ous but it has not been definitely refuted.
retreat, the position of the white queen hinders Black’s
ability to play ...d5. The back rank is cleared of pieces
5.7.2 References
quickly which facilitates queenside castling and may al-
low White to quickly develop an attack. From e3, the [1] “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 2009-08-
white queen may later move to g3 where she will pres- 17. Retrieved 2009-08-15. Arne Moll, Finding Nepo (on
sure Black’s g7-square. an old laptop) (2009) at ChessVibes.com

[2] Budzinski, Glenn (1998). “Anatomy of a Gambit: Dis-

secting the Halasz”. ChessCafe. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
5.7.1 Variations

3.c3 5.7.3 External links

Main article: Danish Gambit • Harding, Tim (August 1999). “The Vampire Gam-
bit: Can We Bury It Now?". ChessCafe.com, The
5.8. DANISH GAMBIT 101

Kibitzer. 5.8.2 Main lines

• Harding, Tim (December 2004). “The Center The Danish Gambit is a variation of the Center Game that
Game takes Center Stage” (pdf). ChessCafe.com, is important enough to be treated on its own. It is C21 in
The Kibitzer. the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings classification.
After 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3, Black can safely decline
the gambit with 3...d6, 3...Qe7, or 3...d5 (Sörensen De-
5.8 Danish Gambit fense or Capablanca Defence). If Black enters the Danish
Gambit Accepted with 3...dxc3, the main possibilities are
The Danish Gambit, known as the Nordisches Gam- 4.Nxc3 and 4.Bc4.
bit (Nordic Gambit) in German, and the Noors Gambiet
(Norwegian Gambit) in Dutch, is a chess opening that be-
gins with the moves:[1] Alekhine Variation: 4.Nxc3

• 4...d6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.Nf3 (Göring Gambit, by

1. e4 e5 transposition)
2. d4 exd4
• 4...Bc5 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.Nf3 (Göring Gambit, by trans-
3. c3 position)

White will sacrifice one or two pawns for the sake of rapid • 4...Nc6 5.Bc4 and 6.Nf3 (Göring Gambit, by trans-
development and the attack. However, with care, Black position)
can accept one or both pawns safely, or simply decline the • 4...Bb4 5.Bc4 (5.Qd4 is an independent option)
gambit altogether with good chances. Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 d6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Ne2 Alekhine–
Although it may have been known earlier, Danish player Pomar, clock simul Madrid 1943
Martin Severin From essayed the gambit in the Paris 1867
tournament and he is usually given credit for the open- Alekhine recommended that White play 4.Nxc3. This
ing. The Danish Gambit was popular with masters of line often transposes into the Göring Gambit of the
the attack including Alekhine, Marshall, Blackburne, and Scotch Game. There are only few lines with Black omit-
Mieses, but as more defensive lines for Black were dis- ting Nc6 and/or White omitting Nf3. This move order
covered and improved, it lost favor in the 1920s. Today enables White to avoid the critical main line of the Göring
it is rarely played in top-level chess. Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3
Bb4) by keeping open the option of meeting an early
...Bb4 by developing the king’s knight to e2 rather than f3
5.8.1 History and thus preventing Black from disrupting White’s queen-
side pawn structure, as Alekhine did in his game against
From the very beginning the nomenclature of the Dan- Pomar above.
ish Gambit was very confusing. The idea stems from a
famous correspondence game London–Edinburgh, 1824:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 Qe7 6.0- Lindehn’s continuation: 4.Bc4
0 dxc3 7.Nxc3. The Swede Hans Lindehn played 1.e4
e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 on a regular basis from 1857 at the Danish Gambit Accepted
latest. He defeated the later World Champion Wilhelm 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2
Steinitz with his gambit in London, 1864. It is possible,
that Severin From met Lindehn in Paris in this period
and learned about the gambit there. According to Gra- • 4...d6 5.Nxc3 (also Göring Gambit, by transposi-
ham Burgess, in Denmark itself, the opening is called the tion)
[2]
Nordic Gambit.
• 4...cxb2 5.Bxb2 (Danish Gambit Accepted, see dia-
Many games transposed to the Göring Gambit, as Nf3 gram)
for White and Nc6 for Black are logical moves. As Carl
Theodor Göring also used to play the double gambit, there • 5...Bb4+ 6.Kf1 or 6.Nc3
was hardly any difference. • 5...d6 6.Qb3
Remarkably enough, the idea to sacrifice just one pawn • 5...d5 (Schlechter Defense)
(Nxc3) is older in the Göring Gambit than in the Danish.
Paul Morphy encountered it at the first USA-Congress of White can instead offer a second pawn with 4.Bc4. The
1857 against Alexander Meek. In the Danish, especially second pawn can be safely declined by transposing into
Alexander Alekhine applied 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 the Göring Gambit. Accepting the pawn allows White’s
4.Nxc3, but on unimportant occasions. two bishops to rake the Black kingside after 4...cxb2
102 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

5.Bxb2. White will often follow up with Qb3 if possible, 5.8.5 References
applying pressure on Black’s b7- and f7-squares. Com-
bined with White’s long diagonal pressure on g7, this can • Lutes, W. John (1992). Danish Gambit. Chess En-
make it difficult for Black to develop his bishops. A sim- terprises. ISBN 0-945470-19-3.
ilar position arises except for Black in the Ross Gam-
bit,[3] a variation of the Scandinavian Defence. • de Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings:
Schlechter recommended one of the most reliable de- MCO-14. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
fenses for Black: by returning one of the pawns with
5...d5 Black gains time to complete development. Af-
ter 6.Bxd5 Nf6 (Bb4+ is also possible) 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.8.6 External links
8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 c5, Black regains
the queen. Most theorists evaluate this position as equal, • Opening Report: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 (2086
but some believe that the queenside majority gives Black games)
the advantage in the endgame.The popularity of the Dan-
ish plummeted after Schlechter’s defense was introduced
as the resulting positions are not what White generally de-
sires from a gambit opening. There have been attempts, 5.9 Lopez Opening
especially by German correspondence player Ingo Firn-
haber, to revive the gambit idea with 7.Nc3, but ac- Not to be confused with Ruy Lopez.
cording to Karsten Müller and Martin Voigt in Danish
Dynamite, this line gives insufficient compensation af-
ter 7...Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Nbd7 (8...c6?? 9.Nf6+) 9.Nf3 c6, The Lopez Opening (or MacLeod Attack) is a chess
since the piece sacrifice 10.0-0 is dubious on account of opening characterized by the moves:
10...cxd5 11.exd5 Be7! If White instead plays 6.exd5,
his light-square bishop is blocked and after 6...Nf6 7.Nc3 1. e4 e5
Bd6 Black can complete development relatively easily.
2. c3
The big advantage of Göring’s move order (Nf3 first, be-
fore c3) is avoiding Schlechter’s defence, since after 1.e4
e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 The opening was played frequently by 19th century
Black cannot safely play 6...d5 with the queen’s knight Scottish–Canadian chess master Nicholas MacLeod but
committed to c6. The big advantage of 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 is has otherwise arisen rarely in tournament play.
the option to meet 3...d5 with 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6
6.Be3 instead of 6.Nf3 transposing to the Göring Gambit
Declined (the main objection being the Capablanca Vari- 5.9.1 Discussion
ation, 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4,
when White must exchange queens or give up castling White’s second move prepares to push a pawn to d4, es-
rights). It also has the advantage of avoiding Black’s other tablishing a strong center. Play can potentially transpose
options after 2.Nf3, which is mainly the Petrov Defence to other openings, most likely the Ponziani Opening or
2...Nf6. the Göring Gambit in the Scotch Game. However, Eric
Schiller states in Unorthodox Chess Openings that the
opening is too slow; that Black can respond vigorously
5.8.3 See also with 2...d5! to eliminate transpositional possibilities and
solve all of his opening problems, as after 1.e4 e5 2.c3 d5!
• List of chess openings 3.exd5 Qxd5, 4.Nc3 is not available to chase the queen
away and gain a tempo.
• List of chess openings named after places

5.8.4 Notes 5.9.2 See also

[1] Edward G. Winter (1999). Kings, Commoners and • Ruy Lopez—a very popular opening with a similar
Knaves: Further Chess Explorations. Russell Enterprises. name
p. 158. ISBN 978-1-888690-04-0.

[2] Graham Burgess, The Mammoth Book of Chess, Carroll &

Graf, 1997, p. 114. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
5.9.3 References

[3] “Scandinavian Defense, Marshall / Ross Gambit: Black Schiller, Eric (2003). Unorthodox Chess Openings. Car-
Attack!". Retrieved 10 October 2016. doza. ISBN 1-58042-072-9.
5.11. PARHAM ATTACK 103

5.10 Napoleon Opening [3] Murray, H.J.R. A Short History of Chess (London: Oxford
University Press), 1963 posthumously, p. 79.
The Napoleon Opening is an irregular chess opening [4] Napoleon Himself, 2005, John Schneider
starting with the moves:

1. e4 e5 5.10.5 External links

2. Qf3 • Napoleon vs. The Turk, Schönbrunn Palace, 1809

As with the similar Wayward Queen Attack (2.Qh5),

White hopes for the Scholar’s Mate (2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 5.11 Parham Attack
Bc5?? 4.Qxf7#), but Black can easily avoid the trap.
The Danvers Opening,[1] also known as the Ken-
5.10.1 History tucky Opening,[2] Queen’s Attack,[3] Queen’s Excur-
sion,[4] Wayward Queen Attack,[5] Patzer Opening[6]
[7]
The Napoleon Opening is named after the French general or Parham Attack is an unorthodox chess opening
and emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who had a deep love characterized by the moves:
of chess but was said to be a mediocre player.[1] The name
came into use after mid-nineteenth century publications 1. e4 e5
reported[2] that he played this opening in an 1809 game 2. Qh5
which he lost to The Turk, a chess automaton operated at
the time by Johann Allgaier.[3] The name may also be a
slighting reference to Napoleon’s empress, Josephine and 5.11.1 History and nomenclature
her scandalous infidelities,[4] hence Napoleon’s inability
to keep his Queen at home. Like many rare openings, 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 has acquired
several names over the years, none of which are univer-
sally used. The earliest known appearance in print was
5.10.2 Assessment in the Dubuque Chess Journal in May 1875, where it was
dubbed the Kentucky Opening,[2] perhaps in reference
The Napoleon is a weak opening because it develops to a game played in Danville, Kentucky, which was pub-
the white queen prematurely and subjects it to attack, lished in the August issue of the same magazine.[8] (This
and deprives the white kingside knight of its best devel- name was also applied by J. H. Blackburne to the unsound
opment square. By comparison, the Wayward Queen Jerome Gambit.) In the American Chess Bulletin in 1905,
Attack is more forcing and stronger—2.Qh5 requiring the opening was referred to as the Danvers Opening, so
Black to first defend his e-pawn (usually with 2...Nc6), named by E. E. Southard, a well-known psychiatrist and
and then after 3.Bc4 forcing Black to play a sub-optimal a strong amateur chess player, after the hospital where he
move (3...g6 virtually committing Black to a fianchetto worked.[1]
rather than a more aggressive placement of the bishop;
3...Qe7 blocking the bishop; or 3...Qf6 taking away the Bernard Parham of Indianapolis is the first master-level
knight’s best square). 2.Qf3 places no such impediments player known to have advocated this line. Parham is
on Black’s development. known for his eccentric theories on the game of chess,
which he has developed into what he calls the “Matrix
System”. Parham’s Matrix System advocates early de-
5.10.3 See also velopment of the queen in several positions, as in his fa-
vored line as White against the Sicilian Defence, 1.e4 c5
• List of chess openings 2.Qh5?! Parham argues that just as Richard Réti and
Aron Nimzowitsch pioneered the hypermodern style of
• List of chess openings named after people chess, his own ideas which are considered strange to-
day may well be considered viable in the future. Sev-
eral internet-based sources refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 as the
5.10.4 References Parham Attack or Parham Opening.[7]
The most notable use of 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 by a grandmaster
[1] Murray, H.J.R. A History of Chess (London: Oxford Uni-
occurred in 2005, when U.S. Champion and future World
versity Press), 1913, p. 877.
Championship contender Hikaru Nakamura played it
[2] Winter, Edward (1998 with updates). “Napoleon Bona- in two tournament games. The best known of these
parte and Chess by Edward Winter”. Retrieved 18 Jan- was against Indian GM Krishnan Sasikiran at the
uary 2013. Check date values in: |date= (help) May 2005 Sigeman Tournament in Copenhagen/Malmö,
104 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

Denmark.[9] Nakamura got a reasonable position out of 5.11.3 Possible continuations

the opening but lost the game due to a mistake made in
the middlegame. He later wrote on the Internet, “I do be- Because most games with the Danvers Opening have been
lieve that 2.Qh5 is a playable move, in fact I had a very played at weak scholastic tournaments, 2...g6?? has of-
good position in the game, and was close to winning if I ten been seen, losing a rook to 3.Qxe5+. The two moves
had in fact played 23.e5.”[10] The previous month, Naka- that have received attention from higher-level players are
mura had played 2.Qh5 against GM Nikola Mitkov at the 2...Nc6 and 2...Nf6!?[13]
April 2005 HB Global Chess Challenge in Minneapolis.
Main position after 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3
The game ended in a draw after 55 moves.[11]
Nf6 5.Ne2
More often the opening is adopted by chess novices, as
when actor Woody Harrelson played it against Garry Kas-
parov in a 1999 exhibition game in Prague.[12] Harrelson
achieved a draw after being assisted by several grandmas- 2...Nc6
ters who were in Prague attending the match between
Alexei Shirov and Judit Polgár.[13] The next year Kas- This is the most common continuation. Black defends
parov again faced the opening as Black when tennis star his e5-pawn from the queen and prepares to meet 3.Bc4
Boris Becker played it against him in an exhibition game with 3...Qe7 (followed by ...Nf6)[4] or 3...g6. The latter
in New York.[14] This time Kasparov won in 17 moves. move is more common, however, and after 4.Qf3 Nf6
5.Ne2 the main position is reached (see diagram). Black
can adopt different plans, one of the most popular being
5.11.2 Assessment 5...Bg7, where 6.0-0 is White’s best try for dynamic play,
as 6.d3 d5 will lead to an even position with few attacking
The Danvers Opening violates a conventional opening chances, and 6.Nbc3 Nb4 is interesting but promises little
principle by developing the queen too early, subjecting for White.
it to attack (although it is relatively safe after retreat-
Grandmasters Sasikiran and Mitkov both played this
ing to f3). Nonetheless, the opening causes Black some
move against Nakamura in 2005.[9][11] Garry Kasparov
problems. Left to his own devices, Black would proba-
also chose it in his exhibition games against Boris Becker
bly develop with ...Nf6, ...Bc5, and ...Nc6. The Danvers
and Woody Harrelson.[12][14]
Opening hinders this by forcing Black (unless he wants
to sacrifice a pawn) to first defend the e-pawn (usually
with 2...Nc6), then after 3.Bc4 to either play 3...g6 (vir- 2...Nf6!?
tually committing Black to fianchettoing his king bishop),
3...Qe7 (blocking the bishop), or 3...Qf6 (taking away the
Introducing a speculative gambit called the Kiddie
knight’s best square). In 2005, the Dutch grandmaster
Countergambit.[17] It is not necessary to sacrifice a pawn
Hans Ree called 2.Qh5:
for development, since the White Queen will have to
lose a tempo eventually, however FIDE Master Dennis
[...] a provocative but quite sensible move. Monokroussos advocates the move as the “psychologi-
White’s presumptuous early queen develop- cally correct” response.[18]
ment hopes to make black suffer from psycho-
logical indifference in a similar fashion to the
Scandinavian defense. If black becomes care- 5.11.4 See also
less in simply warding off the queen, he of-
ten fails to develop his pieces and likely runs • List of chess openings
into early trouble. Black is forced to play into
White’s hands, whether he likes it or not. Thus,
even if black plays well, he may be unable to 5.11.5 References
truly understand white’s motives.[15]
[1] Edward Winter, Danvers Opening at chesshistory.com
As with the similar Napoleon Opening (2.Qf3?!), White
hopes for the Scholar’s Mate, e.g. 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 [2] Kentucky Opening, Dubuque Chess Journal, May 1875,
Nf6?? 4.Qxf7#. In both cases, Black can easily avoid page 250 scanned at Hathitrust (original from New York
the trap, but 2.Qf3 does not pose the impediments to Public Library)
natural development of Black’s pieces that 2.Qh5 does.
[3] Bronstein, David, 200 Open Games, chapter 1, page 1,
Incidentally, Black’s worst possible response to 2.Qh5 is Batsford 1973
2...Ke7?? 3.Qxe5#.[16] (This line ties with a few others
for the fastest possible checkmate by White.) Another [4] Joel Benjamin; Eric Schiller (1987). “Queen’s Excur-
bad response is 2...g6?? 3.Qxe5+, losing not only the sion”. Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publishing
pawn on e5, but also the rook on h8. Company. p. 113. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.
5.12. VIENNA GAME 105

[5] Schiller, Eric (1998). “Wayward Queen Attack”. Un- White’s second move is less common than 2.Nf3, and is
orthodox Chess Openings. Cardoza Publishing. pp. 247– also more recent. A book reviewer wrote in the New York
49. ISBN 0-940685-73-6. Times in 1888 that “since Morphy only one new opening
has been introduced, the 'Vienna'.”[1]
[6] Lev Alburt & Al Lawrence,Chess for Everyone, Rowman
& Littlefield, 2010 The original idea behind the Vienna Game was to play a
delayed King’s Gambit with f4, but in modern play White
[7] The Chess Drum, The Talking Drum featuring Bernard often plays more quietly (for example by fianchettoing
Parham, 6 July 2003 his king’s bishop with g3 and Bg2). Black most often
[8] Fields-Young, Danville Kentucky 1875, Dubuque Chess continues with 2...Nf6. The opening can also lead to the
Journal, August 1875, page 371 scanned at Hathitrust Frankenstein–Dracula Variation.
Weaver W. Adams famously claimed that the Vienna
[9] Nakamura-Sasikiran, 13th Sigeman & Co 2005. Chess-
Game led to a forced win for White.[2] Nick de Firmian
Games.com. Retrieved on 2006-02-09.
concludes in the 15th edition of Modern Chess Openings,
[10] Nakamura on 2.Qh5. Mig Greengard. Published 2005- however, that the opening leads to equality with best play
05-05. Retrieved on 2009-02-06. by both sides.[3]

[11] Nakamura-Mitkov, HB Global Chess Challenge 2005.

ChessGames.com. Retrieved on 2006-02-09.
[12] Harrelson-Kasparov, Consultation game 1999. Chess-
Games.com. Retrieved on 2006-02-09.
[13] Hans Ree, Jake, Joe and Garry. ChessCafe.com. Re-
trieved on 2009-02-06.
[14] Becker-Kasparov, New York exhibition 2000. Chess-
Games.com. Retrieved on 2006-02-09.
[15] Hans Ree, Perils of the Sea. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved
on 2009-02-06.
[16] Eric Schiller-Pack, 1969. ChessGames.com. Retrieved
on 2009-02-06.
[17] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1527454
[18] Dennis Monokroussos, Nakamura-Sasikiran and Junk
Openings, thechessmind.net, 23 April 2005
5.12.1 2...Nf6
White has three main options: 3.f4, 3.Bc4, and 3.g3.
Note that 3.Nf3 transposes to the Petrov’s Three Knights
Game, which after 3...Nc6 leads to the Four Knights
Game.
3.f4
At grandmaster level, the move 3.f4..., the Vienna Gam-
bit, is considered too risky an opening.[4] It is best met
by 3...d5, striking back in the center, since 3...exf4 4.e5
Qe7 5.Qe2 forces Black’s knight to retreat. After 4.fxe5
Nxe4, 5.Qf3 is well met by 5...Nc6, with the point 6.Nxe4
Nd4. 5.d3 is also possible, but the normal continuation is
5.Nf3. White obtains open lines and attacking chances,
but Black can usually hold the balance with correct play.

3.Bc4
5.11.6 External links
The move 3.Bc4 leads to a position which can also be
• Jake, Joe and Garry (column by Hans Ree) reached from the Bishop’s Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4).
Black has several choices here; 3...Bc5 can transpose
• Nakamura-Sasikiran, Sigeman 2005 to the King’s Gambit Declined after 4.d3 d6 5.f4 Nc6
6.Nf3; after 3...Nc6 4.d3, 4...Na5, 4...Bc5 or 4...d6
• Article on Parham in Indianapolis paper 2007 are all playable; 3...Bb4 4.f4 Nxe4 5.Qh5 0-0 leads
to wild but probably equal play, according to de Fir-
• Games with the Danvers Opening on Chess- mian in MCO-15.[5] Also possible is 3...Nxe4, when
Games.com 4.Nxe4 d5, forking bishop and knight, is fine for Black.[6]
The attractive-looking 4.Bxf7+ is weak; after 4...Kxf7
5.Nxe4 d5! (inferior is 5...Nc6 6.Qf3+, when Black
5.12 Vienna Game cannot play 6...Kg8?? because of 7.Ng5! 1–0 Davids–
Diggle, London Banks League 1949, while 6...Ke8 leaves
[7][8]
The Vienna Game is an opening in chess that begins with the king awkwardly placed in the center) 6.Qf3+
[9]
the moves: (6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5? Bh6! wins for Black) Kg8
7.Ng5!? (hoping for 7...Qxg5?? 8.Qxd5+ and mate next
move, Schottlaender–Ed. Lasker, simultaneous exhibi-
1. e4 e5 tion, Breslau c. 1902) Qd7!, with a large advantage for
2. Nc3 Black in view of his bishop pair and pawn center.[10][11]
106
After 3...Nxe4, White usually continues instead 4.Qh5
(threatening Qxf7#) 4...Nd6 5.Bb3 when Black can either
go for the relatively quiet waters of 5...Be7 6.Nf3 Nc6
7.Nxe5 g6 8.Qe2 (or 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.Qe5 0-0) Nd4 9.Qd3
Nxb3 10.axb3 Nf5 11.0-0 d6, which led to equality in
Anand–Ivanchuk, Roquebrune 1992.[6] or the complex-
ities of 5...Nc6 6.Nb5 g6 7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+
Kd8 10.Nxa8 b6, which the Irish correspondence chess
player and theorist Tim Harding extravagantly dubbed
“the Frankenstein–Dracula Variation.”[12]
3.g3
The move 3.g3, the Mieses Variation, is a quiet contin-
uation in which White fianchettoes his king’s bishop, a
line played by Vasily Smyslov on a few occasions, most
notably in a win over Lev Polugaevsky in the 1961 USSR
Championship. That game continued 3...d5 4.exd5 Nxd5
5.Bg2 Be6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Re1 Bf6 9.Ne4 0-0
10.d3 Be7 11.a3 Nb6 12.b4, resulting in a position which
the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings assesses as slightly
better for White. The main line today, however, is con-
sidered to be 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bd6 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0. A
major alternative for Black is 3...Bc5 (3...Nc6 normally
transposes into one of the other lines).
3.a3
In addition to these lines, the late American master
Ariel Mengarini advocated the whimsical 3.a3, some-
times called Mengarini’s Opening. It is not a serious try
for advantage, but is essentially a useful waiting move that
gives White an improved version of Black’s position af-
ter 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. First, the “Reversed Ruy Lopez"
with 3...Bb4 is ruled out. Second, after 3...d5, 4.exd5
Nxd5 5.Qh5!? gives White an improved version of the
Steinitz Variation of the Scotch Game, since Black can
never play ...Nb4, an important idea for White in the
mirror-image position. Third, after 3...Bc5, 4.Nf3 gives a
reversed Two Knights Defense. Then the typical 4...Ng4
may be met by 5.d4 exd4 6.Na4, when 6...Bb4+, White’s
usual move in the mirror-image position, is impossible.
After 4...Ng4, White may also play improved versions of
the Ulvestad Variation (6.b4 in the above line) and Fritz
Variation (6.Nd5 c6 7.b4), since when White plays b4
his pawn is protected, unlike in the mirror-image posi-
tion. If Black plays more quietly with 3...Bc5 4.Nf3 Nc6,
then 5.Nxe5! Nxe5 6.d4 gives White some advantage.
The best line for Black may be 3...Bc5 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5
0-0 (better than 5...e4 6.d4, when the normal 6...Bb4 is
impossible), and if 6.Nxe5, 6...Re8 7.d4 Bxd4! 8.Qxd4
Nc6, as in the mirror-image line. Also possible is 3...Bc5
4.Nf3 d6, when Black stands well after 5.Bc4 Be6, while
5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 gives White little or no advantage.
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
5.12.2 2...Nc6
White again has three main options, 3.Bc4, 3.f4, and
3.g3. Note that 3.Nf3 transposes to the Three Knights
Game, which after 3...Nf6 leads to the Four Knights
Game.
3.Bc4
Most often, White plays 3.Bc4, when the solid 3...Nf6
transposes to the 2...Nf6 3.Bc4 Nc6 line. Weaker is
3.Bc4 Bc5, when 4.Qg4! is awkward to meet. 4...Kf8
and 4...g6 are thought the best moves, but neither is
too appealing for Black. The natural 4...Qf6?? loses
to 5.Nd5! Qxf2+ 6.Kd1, when White’s king is in no
real danger, and White has multiple threats: 7.Qxg7;
7.Nxc7+; and 7.Nh3 Qd4 8.d3 threatening to trap Black’s
queen with 9.c3.[13]
3.f4
Hamppe–Muzio Gambit The Hamppe–Muzio Gam-
bit (or Vienna Hamppe–Muzio Gambit) is characterised
by the moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5
5.Bc4 g4 6.0-0 gxf3 7.Qxf3 (diagram).
As with its close relative, the sharp Muzio Gambit, White
sacrifices the knight on f3 in return for a powerful attack
against the black king. It is named after Austrian the-
oretician Carl Hamppe and classified under ECO code
C25.
The Dubois Variation continues 7...Ne5 8.Qxf4 Qf6.
Steinitz Gambit The Steinitz Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3
Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4, was a favorite of Wilhelm Steinitz,
the first World Champion. White allows Black to mis-
place White’s king with 4...Qh4+ 5.Ke2 (diagram), hop-
ing to prove that White’s pawn center and the exposed
position of Black’s queen are more significant factors.
Unlike Steinitz, who famously opined that, “The King is a
fighting piece!", few modern players are willing to expose
their king this way. The Steinitz Gambit is thus rarely
seen today.
3.g3
This move is known as the Paulsen Variation.
5.12.3 2...Bc5
This is an offbeat but playable alternative, as played (for
example) by former world champion José Raúl Capa-
blanca against Ilya Kan at Moscow 1936.[14] Some possi-
ble moves are 3.Bc4, 3.Nf3, and 3.f4. With move 3.Bc4,
5.13. FRANKENSTEIN-DRACULA VARIATION 107

...Nf6 and ...Nc6 can be found above, or Black can play [9] Neishtadt, pp. 65–66.
...d6.
[10] Neishtadt, p. 65.
White can continue with 3.Nf3, when 3...Nc6?! (trans-
posing to the Three Knights Game) 4.Nxe5! Nxe5 5.d4 [11] Lasker, Edward (1969) [1951]. Chess Secrets I Learned
From The Masters. Dover, NY: David McKay Company.
Bd6 6.dxe5 Bxe5 7.Bd3 leads to a large advantage for
[15] pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0486-22266-0.
White. Stronger is 3...d6! Then 4.Na4 Nd7 5.d3 Ngf6
6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Nxc5 Nxc5 9.Ne1 Ne6 10.c3 d5 [12] Schiller, Eric (1998). Standard Chess Openings. Cardoza
is about even.[16] The main line runs 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Publishing. p. 39. ISBN 0-940685-72-8.
Nf6 6.Bg5 (6.Be2 d5 7.e5 Ne4 8.0-0 Nxc3 leads to [13] Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen writes that after 5.Nd5!
equality[16] ) h6 7.Bh4 0-0 8.Nb3 and now de Firmian in “it’s over, as detailed analysis reveals.” Larry Evans,
MCO-15 gives 8...Bb4 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Svetozar Gligorić, Vlastimil Hort, Paul Keres, Bent
g5! 12.Bg3 Nxe4, when Black’s “chances are at least Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and Lajos Portisch (1974), How
equal”.[16] to Open a Chess Game, RHM Press, p. 172. ISBN 0-
89058-003-0.
After 3.f4, ...d6 leads to the King’s Gambit Declined.[16]
Weak is 3.Qg4 Nf6! 4.Qxg7 Rg8 5.Qh6 Bxf2+ when [14] Kan–Capablanca, Moscow 1936. ChessGames.com. Re-
Black had a large advantage in Tsikhelashvili–Karpov, trieved on 2009-02-23.
USSR 1968, since 6.Kxf2?? Ng4+ would win White’s
[15] de Firmian, pp. 130–31.
queen.[16] Another offbeat possibility is 3.Na4, when
3...Bxf2+!? 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qxf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 leads [16] de Firmian, p. 120.
to wild complications, as in the famous Immortal Draw
[17] Michael Goeller, The Hamppe–Meitner Motif. Retrieved
game Hamppe–Meitner, Vienna 1872. However, the
on 2009-01-22.
quiet 3...Be7 leaves Black with a good game.[17]

5.12.6 Literature
5.12.4 See also
• László Jakobetz, László Somlai: Die Wiener Partie.
• List of chess openings Dreier, 1994, ISBN 3-929376-12-1
• List of chess openings named after places

• Vienna Game, Würzburger Trap 5.13 Frankenstein-Dracula Varia-

5.12.5 References
[1] A New Chess Book, May 13, 1888, accessed 2008-11-12
[2] “Mr. Adams and his cronies may be linked to the radical
right wing of chess. For all their faulty analysis, they must
be given credit for introducing healthy controversy into the
staid annals of opening theory. ... Weaver is not content
with such halfway measures as equality. All or nothing
– right-wing logic, true to form.” Evans, Larry (1970).
Chess Catechism. Simon and Schuster. pp. 146–47, 153.
ISBN 0-671-21531-0.
[3] de Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
15. Random House Puzzles & Games. pp. 114–20. ISBN
978-0-8129-3682-7.
[4] Keene, Raymond. The Times 1 June 2012
[5] de Firmian, pp. 119–20.
tion
The Frankenstein–Dracula Variation is a chess open-
ing, usually considered a branch of the Vienna Game,
but can also be reached from the Bishop’s Opening. The
opening involves many complications; however, with ac-
curate play the opening is playable for both sides.
The variation was given its name by Tim Harding in his
1976 book on the Vienna Game, in which he said that
the bloodthirstiness of the character of play was such that
“a game between Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster
would not seem out of place.”
The line is seen extremely infrequently in top-level play.
Ivanchuk used the opening against Viswanathan Anand
in Roquebrune in 1992 in a game that ended as a draw.
Alexei Shirov had also played this in a simultaneous ex-
hibition with black in Canada 2011.

[6] de Firmian, p. 115. 5.13.1 Annotated moves

[7] Neishtadt, Iakov (1980). Catastrophe in the Opening. 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4
Pergamon. pp. 66–67. ISBN 0-08-024097-6.

[8] Diggle, G. H. (1984). Chess Characters: Reminiscences of Another common way of reaching the same po-
a Badmaster. Chess Notes. p. 50. OCLC 769108138. sition is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 (Bishop’s Opening) Nf6
ASIN B001L1DDB0 3.Nc3.
108
3... Nxe4
This is the move that defines the Frankenstein–
Dracula Variation. White cannot of course
win material immediately, since 4.Nxe4 brings
4...d5.
4. Qh5
4.Nxe4 d5 is considered to give Black no prob-
lems. 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe4 is considered
good for Black as long as he avoids 5...Nc6
(5...d5) 6.Qf3+ Kg8 7.Ng5! and White wins
(7...Qxg5 8.Qd5#). 4.Qh5 threatens Qxf7#,
a threat that White continues to renew in this
line.
4... Nd6
This move is the only good response to White’s
dual threats against f7 and e5; 4...Ng5 would
be met by 5.d4 Ne6 6.dxe5 with some advan-
tage. Also possible is 6.d5, when 6...g6 loses to
7.dxe6, as in Böök–Heidenheimo 1925.[1] In-
stead, 6.d5 Nd4 led to very complicated play
in Kis–Csato, Hungarian Team Championship
1993.[2]
5. Bb3
Swedish grandmaster Ulf Andersson recom-
mended 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxe7+ Bxe7 7.Be2,
claiming that White has some advantage. (See
Harding’s 1998 column cited below.)
Position after 10...b6
5... Nc6
5...Be7 (returning the pawn) is a quieter al-
ternative, for example 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nxe5 0-
0 8.0-0 Nxe5 9.Qxe5 Bf6 10.Qf4 Ne8 11.d4
c6 12.d5; however, White has a better game
(Larsen; Nielsen–Muir, corr. 1971).
6. Nb5 g6 7. Qf3 f5
David Bronstein once won a game with
7...f6!? 8.Nxc7+ Qxc7 9.Qxf6 b6 10.Qxh8
Bb7 11.Qxh7 0-0-0, but he has not found
followers.[3] If Black tries 7...Nf5 then White
continues 8.g4 (also strong is 8.Qd5 Nh6
9.d4 d6 10.Bxh6 Be6 11.Qf3 Bxh6 12.d5+/-
Hughes-Fogarty, Pittsburgh 2013) 8...a6
9.gxf5 axb5 10.fxg6 Qe7 11.gxf7+ Kd8
12.Ne2 (preventing ...Nd4) e4 13.Qg3+/−.
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
8. Qd5 Qe7
8...Qf6 has also been tried and white has to
be careful. For instance, after 9 Nxc7+ Kd8
10 Nxa8 b6 11. d3 Bb7 12.h4 as in the main
line, black has the strong 12...Ne7! that he
cannot play with the queen on e7 (white has
now a very poor game). Unfortunately, after
11.d4 Nxd4 12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Nf3 Bb7 white
can play 14.Qxd4! (that would be a terrible
move with the black queen on e7) and black’s
attack is now less sharp after 14...exd4 15.Bg5
Qxg5 16.Nxg5
9. Nxc7+ Kd8 10. Nxa8
Black almost always continues 10...b6 (see dia-
gram), preparing Bb7 to trap the knight. Black
is at the moment a rook down, but will eventu-
ally regain the knight, leaving him down the ex-
change. In return, Black will play for an attack.
5.13.2 Competing strategies
In return for his material, Black has a good pawn centre
and his bishops will be well placed on the long diagonals.
He will try to justify his sacrifice by avoiding a queen
exchange and attempting to checkmate White. White
will secure his king (usually by castling queenside) and
his queen (which for the moment is somewhat short of
squares), hold onto his extra material and eventually may
go on the offensive and attack the black king stuck in the
centre of the board. Whether Black has sufficient com-
pensation is a matter of opinion. One possible continu-
ation is 11. d3 Bb7 12. h4 (threatening to win Black’s
queen with Bg5) 12... f4 13. Qf3 Nd4 (13...Bh6 14.Bd2
is also possible) 14. Qg4 (a 1969 recommendation by
Anthony Santasiere, threatening to trade queens with
Qg5), when Black chooses between 14...Bh6, 14...Bg7,
and 14...Bxa8. (See Harding’s 1998 column cited below.)
5.13.3 Notable game
Jacob Øst-Hansen vs. John Nunn, Teesside 1974[4]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6
6.Nb5 g6 7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8
b6 11.d3 Bb7 12.h4 f4 13.Qf3 Bh6 14.Qg4 e4 15.Bxf4
exd3+ 16.Kf1 Bxf4 17.Qxf4 Rf8 18.Qg3 Ne4 19.Qc7+
Ke8 20.Nh3 Nxf2 21.Nxf2 Qe2+ 22.Kg1 Qxf2+ 23.Kh2
Qxh4+ 24.Kg1 Qd4+ 25.Kh2 Ne5 26.Rhf1 Ng4+
27.Kh3 Qe3+ 28.Kxg4 h5+ 29.Kh4 g5+ 30.Kxh5 Rh8+
31.Kg6 Be4+ 32.Rf5 Bxf5+ 33.Kxf5 Rf8+ 34.Kg6 Qe4+
35.Kg7 Qe7+ 36.Kg6 Qf6+ 37.Kh5 Qh8+ 38.Kg4 Qh4#
0–1
5.15. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 109

5.13.4 References 5.14.3 References

[1] Böök–Heidenheimo, 1925 • John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe
[2] Kis–Csato, Hungarian Team Championship 1993 Gallagher (1999). Nunn’s Chess Openings. Every-
man Publishers plc. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
[3] Mukhin–Bronstein, USSR 1959
[4] Øst-Hansen vs. Nunn, 1974
5.15 Diemer-Duhm Gambit
5.13.5 External links
The French Defence is a chess opening characterised by
• 1996 “Kibitzer” column by Tim Harding (PDF) the moves:

• 1998 “Kibitzer” column by Tim Harding 1. e4 e6

• 167 Games at Chess.com
The French has a reputation for solidity and resilience,
though it can result in a somewhat cramped game for
5.14 Alapin’s Opening Black in the early stages. Black often gains counterat-
tacking possibilities on the queenside while White tends
Alapin’s Opening is an unusual chess opening that starts to concentrate on the kingside.
with the moves:

1.e4 e5
5.15.1 Basics
2.Ne2 Position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5

It is named after the Russo-Lithuanian player and open-

ings analyst Semyon Alapin (1856–1923). Although Following the opening moves 1.e4 e6, the game usually
this opening is rarely used, Ljubojević (as Black) played continues 2.d4 d5 (see below for alternatives). White
against it at Groningen in 1970. makes a claim to the centre, while Black immediately
challenges the pawn on e4.
White’s options include defending the e4 pawn with
5.14.1 Description 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2, exchanging with 3.exd5, or advancing
the pawn with 3.e5, each of which lead to different types
Alapin’s Opening is offbeat, but perfectly playable for of positions. Note that 3.Bd3 allows 3...dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6,
White. It is mainly used to avoid highly theoretical lines after which White must concede to Black either a tempo
such as the Ruy Lopez, or to surprise the opponent. White or the advantage of the two bishops.
intends to play f2–f4 soon. There is similarity to the
Smyslov Position (Smyslov–Botvinnik, 1958) if White
tries to play something in the lines of g3, Nbc3, d3, Bg2. 5.15.2 General themes
However, Alapin’s Opening also incurs several problems
for White. First, the development of White’s light-square Typical pawn structure
bishop, and also of his queen, is blocked, and will require
another move of the knight or another pawn move, both See the diagram for the pawn structure most typical of the
of which go against the opening principle to develop the French. Black has more space on the queenside, so tends
minor pieces quickly. Second, the knight on e2, although to focus on that side of the board, almost always playing
flexible, has no control over Black’s half of the centre, ...c7–c5 at some point to attack White’s pawn chain at its
and will need to be moved again to become more useful. base, and may follow up by advancing his a- and b-pawns.
It is relatively easy for Black to equalise in this opening, Alternatively or simultaneously, Black will play against
for example, 2...Nf6, 2...Nc6, and 2...d5 all equalise, al- White’s centre, which is cramping his position. The flank
though Black should be careful to avoid being caught by attack ...c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so
surprise by an eventual f2–f4. Black will often play ...f7–f6. If White supports the
pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two com-
mon ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by
5.14.2 See also playing ...g7–g5. The pawn on g5 may also threaten to
advance to g4 to drive away a white knight on f3, aug-
• List of chess openings
menting Black’s play against the White centre. Another
• List of chess openings named after people idea is to play ...fxe5, and if White recaptures with fxe5,
110 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

then Black gains an open f-file for his rook. Then, as

Teichmann, White won after 41 moves. In order to avoid
White usually has a knight on f3 guarding his pawns on
this fate, Black usually makes it a priority early in the
d4 and e5, Black may sacrifice the exchange with ...Rxf3
game to find a useful post for the bishop. Black can
to destroy the white centre and attack the king. On the
play ...Bd7–a4 to attack a pawn on c2, which occurs in
other hand, if White plays dxe5, then the a7–g1 diago-
many lines of the Winawer Variation. If Black’s f-pawn
nal is opened, making it less desirable for White to castle
has moved to f6, then Black may also consider bringing
kingside. the bishop to g6 or h5 via d7 and e8. If White’s light-
After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 square bishop is on the f1–a6 diagonal, Black can try to
exchange it by playing ...b6 and ...Ba6, or ...Qb6 followed
6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3
by ...Bd7–Bb5.

White usually tries to exploit his extra space on the king-
side, where he will often play for a mating attack. White
tries to do this in the Alekhine–Chatard attack, for exam-
ple. Another example is the following line of the Classi-
cal French: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5
Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3 (see dia-
gram). White’s light-square bishop eyes the weak h7-
pawn, which is usually defended by a knight on f6 but here
it has been pushed away by e5. A typical way for White to
continue his attack is 9...cxd4 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+
when Black must give up his queen to avoid being mated,
continuing with 11...Qxg5 12.fxg5 dxc3. Black has three
minor pieces for the queen, which gives him a slight ma-
terial superiority, but his king is vulnerable and White has
good attacking chances.
Apart from a piece attack, White may play for the ad-
vance of his kingside pawns (an especially common idea
in the endgame), which usually involves f2–f4, g2–g4 and
then f4–f5 to utilise his natural spatial advantage on that
side of the board. A white pawn on f5 can be very strong
as it may threaten to capture on e6 or advance to f6.
Sometimes pushing the h-pawn to h5 or h6 may also be
effective. A modern idea is for White to gain space on the
queenside by playing a2–a3 and b2–b4. If implemented
successfully, this will further restrict Black’s pieces.
Tarrasch–Teichmann, 1912
Position after 15...Nxc5
One of the drawbacks of the French Defence for Black
is his queen’s bishop, which is blocked in by his pawn on
e6. If Black is unable to free it by means of the pawn
breaks ...c5 and/or ...f6, it can remain passive through-
out the game. An often-cited example of the potential
weakness of this bishop is S. Tarrasch–R. Teichmann,
San Sebastián 1912, in which the diagrammed position 5.15.3
was reached after fifteen moves of a Classical French.
Black’s position is passive because his light-square bishop 3.Nc3
is hemmed in by pawns on a6, b5, d5, e6 and f7. White
will probably try to exchange Black’s knight, which is the
only one of his pieces that has any scope. Although it
might be possible for Black to hold on for a draw, it is not
easy and, barring any mistakes by White, Black will have
few chances to create counterplay, which is why, for many
years, the classical lines fell out of favour, and 3...Bb4 be-
gan to be seen more frequently after World War I, due to
the efforts of Nimzowitsch and Botvinnik. In Tarrasch–
A general theme in the Advance French is that White
would like to put his light-square bishop on d3, maximis-
ing its scope. White cannot play this move immediately
after 5...Qb6 without losing the d4 pawn. Black can-
not gain the extra pawn immediately since 6.Bd3 cxd4
7.cxd4 Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+ wins the black
queen by a discovered attack with check. Thus, theory
holds that Black should play 7...Bd7 instead to obviate
this idea. White has often sacrificed the d-pawn anyway
by continuing 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Nc3. This is
the Milner-Barry Gambit, named after Sir Stuart Milner-
Barry, considered of marginal soundness by present-day
theory, and has never had proponents at the highest levels
of play.
Another theme is that White wants to expand on the king-
side and attack the black king; the long-term advantages
in many French structures lie with Black, so White is of-
ten more or less forced to attack by various methods, such
as driving the black knight off f5 with g4 or playing h4–
h5 to expel the knight from g6. Because of the blocked
centre, sacrificial mating attacks are often possible. It
is said by French players that the classic bishop sacrifice
(Bd3xh7) should be evaluated every move. Black, how-
ever, often welcomes an attack as the French is notorious
for producing defensive tactics and maneuvers that leave
Black up material for an endgame. Viktor Korchnoi who,
along with Botvinnik, was the strongest player who advo-
cated the French, talked about how he would psycholog-
ically lure his opponents into attacking him so that they
would eventually sacrifice material and he would halt his
opponent’s army and win the endgame easily.
Main line: 2.d4 d5
Played in over 40% of all games after 1. e4 e6 2. d4
d5, 3. Nc3 is the most commonly seen line against the
French. Black has three main options, 3...dxe4 (the Ru-
binstein Variation), 3...Bb4 (the Winawer Variation)
and 3...Nf6 (the Classical Variation). An eccentric idea
is 3...Nc6!? 4.Nf3 Nf6 with the idea of 5.e5 Ne4; Ger-
man IM Helmut Reefschlaeger has been fond of this
move.
5.15. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 111

Rubinstein Variation: 3...dxe4 After 3.Nc3 dxe4 If the tactical complications of 7.Qg4 are not to White’s
4.Nxe4 taste, 7.Nf3 and 7.a4 are good positional alternatives:
7. Nf3 is a natural developing move, and White usually
This variation is named after Akiba Rubinstein and can follows it up by developing the king’s bishop to d3 or e2
also arise from a different move order: 3.Nd2 dxe4. (occasionally to b5) and castling kingside. This is called
White has freer development and more space in the cen- the Winawer Advance Variation. This line often contin-
tre, which Black intends to neutralise by playing ...c7–c5 ues 7... Bd7 8. Bd3 c4 9. Be2 Ba4 10. 0-0 Qa5 11.
at some point. This solid line has undergone a modest re- Bd2 Nbc6 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nh3 0-0-0. Its assessment is
vival, featuring in many GM games as a drawing weapon unclear, but most likely Black would be considered “com-
but theory still gives White a slight edge. After 3... dxe4 fortable” here.
4. Nxe4, Black has the following options: The purpose behind 7. a4 is threefold: it prepares Bc1–
a3, taking advantage of the absence of Black’s dark-
• The most popular line is: 4...Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 square bishop. It also prevents Black from playing
6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 when Black is ready for ...c5. ...Qa5–a4 or ...Bd7–a4 attacking c2, and if Black plays
...b6 (followed by ...Ba6 to trade off the bad bishop),
• 4...Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 (the Fort Knox Variation) acti-
White may play a5 to attack the b6-pawn.
vating the light-square bishop, which is often played
by Alexander Rustemov.
Sidelines 5th move deviations for White include:
Winawer Variation: 3...Bb4 This variation, named
after Szymon Winawer and pioneered by Nimzowitsch • 5.Qg4
and Botvinnik, is one of the main systems in the French,
due chiefly to the latter’s efforts in the 1940s, becoming • 5.dxc5
the most often seen rejoinder to 3.Nc3, though in the
1980s, the Classical Variation with 3...Nf6 began a re- • 5.Nf3
vival, and has since become more popular.
• 5.Bd2
3... Bb4 pins the knight on c3, forcing White to resolve
the central tension. White normally clarifies the central 4th move deviations for White include:
situation for the moment with 4. e5, gaining space and
hoping to show that Black’s b4-bishop is misplaced. The
main line then is: 4... c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3, resulting • 4.exd5 exd5, transposing to a line of the Exchange
in the diagrammed position: Variation.
After 3...Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 • 4.Ne2 (the Alekhine Gambit) 4...dxe4 5.a3 Be7
(5...Bxc3+ is necessary if Black wants to try to hold
While White has doubled pawns on the queenside, which the pawn) 6.Nxe4 to prevent Black from doubling
form the basis for Black’s counterplay, they can also help his pawns.
White since they strengthen his centre and give him a
• 4.Bd3 defending e4.
semi-open b-file. White has a spatial advantage on the
kingside, where Black is even weaker than usual because • 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4, another attempt to
he has traded off his dark-square bishop. Combined with exploit Black’s weakness on g7.
the bishop pair, this gives White attacking chances, which
he must attempt to utilise as the long-term features of this • 4.e5 c5 5.Bd2, again preventing the doubled pawns
pawn structure favour Black. and making possible 6.Nb5, where the knight may
In the diagrammed position, Black most frequently plays hop into d6 or simply defend d4.
6... Ne7 (The main alternative is 6...Qc7, which can sim-
• 4.Bd2 (an old move sometimes played by Nezh-
ply transpose to main lines after 7.Qg4 Ne7, but Black
metdinov, notably against Mikhail Tal)
also has the option of 7.Qg4 f5 or ...f6. 6...Qa5 has re-
cently become a popular alternative). Now White can ex-
ploit the absence of Black’s dark-square bishop by play- Deviations for Black include:
ing 7. Qg4, giving Black two choices: he may sacri-
fice his kingside pawns with 7...Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 • 4...Ne7 although this move usually transposes to the
cxd4 but destroy White’s centre in return, the so-called main line.
"Poisoned Pawn Variation"; or he can play 7...0-0 8.Bd3
Nbc6, which avoids giving up material, but leaves the • 4...b6 followed by ...Ba6, or 4...Qd7 with the idea
king on the flank where White is trying to attack. Ex- of meeting 5.Qg4 with 5...f5. However, theory cur-
perts on the 7.Qg4 line include Judit Polgár. rently prefers White’s chances in both lines.
112
• Another popular way for Black to deviate is 4.e5
c5 5.a3 Ba5, the Armenian Variation, as its the-
ory and practice have been much enriched by play-
ers from that country, the most notable of whom is
Rafael Vaganian. Black maintains the pin on the
knight, which White usually tries to break by play-
ing 6.b4 cxb4 7.Qg4 or 7.Nb5 (usually 7.Nb5 bxa3+
8.c3 Bc7 9.Bxa3 and white has the upper hand).
Classical Variation: 3...Nf6 Classical Variation
3...Nf6
This is another major system in the French. White can
continue with the following options:
4.Bg5 White threatens 5.e5, attacking the pinned
knight. Black has a number of ways to meet this threat:
• Burn Variation, named after Amos Burn is the
most common reply at the top level: 4... dxe4 5.
Nxe4 and usually there now follows: 5... Be7 6.
Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Nf3 Nd7 or 7... 0-0, resulting in
a position resembling those arising from the Ru-
binstein Variation. However, here Black has the
bishop pair, with greater dynamic chances (although
White’s knight is well placed on e4), so this line is
more popular than the Rubinstein and has long been
a favourite of Evgeny Bareev. Black can also try 5...
Be7 6. Bxf6 gxf6, as played by Alexander Moroze-
vich and Gregory Kaidanov; by following up with
...f5 and ...Bf6, Black obtains active piece play in
return for his shattered pawn structure. Another line
that resembles the Rubinstein is 5... Nbd7 6. Nf3
Be7 (6...h6 is also tried) 7. Nxf6+ Bxf6.
• 4... Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 used to be the main line and
remains important, even though the Burn Variation
has overtaken it in popularity. The usual continua-
tion is 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4 0-0 8. Nf3 c5, when
White has a number of options, including 9.Bd3,
9.Qd2 and 9.dxc5. An alternative for White is the
gambit 6. h4, which was devised by Adolf Albin
and played by Chatard, but not taken seriously un-
til the game Alekhine–Fahrni, Mannheim 1914. It
is known today as the Albin–Chatard Attack or
the Alekhine–Chatard Attack. After 6... Bxg5 7.
hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9. Nf4 Nc6 10. Qg4 (the
reason for 8.Nh3 rather than 8.Nf3), White has sac-
rificed a pawn to open the h-file, thereby increasing
his attacking chances on the kingside. Black may
also decline the gambit in several ways such 6... a6
and 6... f6, but most strong players prefer 6... c5.
• A third choice for Black is to counterattack with
the McCutcheon Variation. In this variation, the
second player ignores White’s threat of e4-e5 and
instead plays 4... Bb4. The main line continues:
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4.
At this point Black may play 8...g6, which weak-
ens the kingside dark squares but keeps the option
of castling queenside, or 8...Kf8. The McCutcheon
Variation is named for John Lindsay McCutcheon
of Philadelphia (1857–1905), who brought the vari-
ation to public attention when he used it to defeat
World Champion Steinitz in a simultaneous exhibi-
tion in Manhattan in 1885.[1][2][3]
4.e5 The Steinitz Variation (named after Wilhelm
Steinitz) is 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 (the most common but
White has other options: 5.Nce2, the Shirov–Anand
Variation), White gets ready to bolster his centre with
c2–c3 and f2–f4. Or 5.Nf3 (aiming for piece play) 5...
c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 (7.Nce2 transposes to the Shirov–
Anand Variation; a trap is 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Ndxe5!
9.fxe5 Qh4+ winning a pawn), Black has several options.
He may step up pressure on d4 by playing 7...Qb6 or
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6, or choose to complete his devel-
opment, either beginning with the kingside by playing
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5, or with the queenside by playing
7...a6 8.Qd2 b5.
Tarrasch Variation: 3.Nd2
After 3.Nd2 Nf6
The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tar-
rasch. This move became particularly popular during the
1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to
great effect. Though less aggressive than the alternate
3.Nc3, it is still used by top-level players seeking a small,
safe advantage.
Like 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 protects e4, but is different in several
key respects: it does not block White’s c-pawn from ad-
vancing, which means he can play c3 at some point to sup-
port his d4-pawn. Hence, it avoids the Winawer Variation
as 3...Bb4 is now readily answered by 4.c3. On the other
hand, 3.Nd2 develops the knight to an arguably less ac-
tive square than 3.Nc3, and in addition, it hems in White’s
dark-square bishop. Hence, white will typically have to
spend an extra tempo moving the knight from d2 at some
point before developing said bishop.
• 3... c5 4. exd5 and now Black has two ways to re-
capture:
• 4... exd5 this was a staple of many old
Karpov–Korchnoi battles, including seven
games in their 1974 match, usually leads to
Black having an isolated queen’s pawn (see
isolated pawn). The main line continues 5.
Ngf3 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. 0-0 Nge7 8. dxc5
Bxc5 9. Nb3 Bb6 with a position where, if
White can neutralise the activity of Black’s
5.15. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 113

pieces in the middlegame, he will have a slight useful for Black in most French lines because, for
advantage in the ending. Another possibility example, White no longer has the option of playing
for White is 5.Bb5+ Bd7 (5...Nc6 is also pos- Bb5.
sible) 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 to trade off the bish-
ops and make it more difficult for Black to re-
gain the pawn. Exchange Variation: 3.exd5 exd5
• 4... Qxd5 is an important alternative for
After 3.exd5 exd5
Black; the idea is to trade his c- and d-pawns
for White’s d- and e-pawns, leaving Black with
an extra centre pawn. This constitutes a slight Many players who begin with 1.e4 find that the French
structural advantage, but in return White gains Defence is the most difficult opening for them to play
time for development by harassing Black’s against due to the closed structure and unique strategies
queen. This interplay of static and dynamic of the system. Thus, many players choose to play the ex-
advantages is the reason why this line has be- change so that the position becomes simple and clearcut.
come popular in the last decade. Play usu- White makes no effort to exploit the advantage of the
ally continues 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. first move, and has often chosen this line with expec-
0-0 Nf6 (preventing 8.Ne4) 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. tation of an early draw, and indeed draws often occur
Nbxd4 Nxd4, and here White may stay in the if neither side breaks the symmetry. An extreme ex-
middlegame with 10.Nxd4 or offer the trade ample was Capablanca–Maróczy, Lake Hopatcong 1926,
of queens with 10.Qxd4, with the former far which went: 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 Bg4
more commonly played today. 8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c6 10.c3 Qc7 11.Qc2 Rfe8 12.Bh4
Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Rxe8+ Rxe8 16.Bxg6
• 3... Nf6 While the objective of 3...c5 was to break hxg6 17.Re1 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Ne8 19.Nd3 Nd6 20.Qb3
open the centre, 3... Nf6 aims to close it. After 4. a6 21.Kf1 ½–½ (the game can be viewed here).
e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 (6...b6 intends ...Ba6
Despite the symmetrical pawn structure, White cannot
next to get rid of Black’s “bad” light-square bishop,
force a draw. An obsession with obtaining one some-
a recurring idea in the French) 7. Ne2 (leaving f3
times results in embarrassment for White, as in Tatai–
open for the queen’s knight) 7... cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9.
Korchnoi, Beer Sheva 1978, which continued 4.Bd3
exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 Black has freed his pieces
c5!? 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0
at the cost of having a backward pawn on e6. White
Bxc5 10.c3 Re8 11.Qc2 Qd6 12.Nbd2 Qg3 13.Bf5 Re2
may also choose to preserve his pawn on e5 by play-
14.Nd4 Nxd4 0–1 (the game can be watched here). A less
ing 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. f4 Nc6 7. Ndf3, but
extreme example was Mikhail Gurevich–Short, Manila
his development is slowed as a result, and Black will
1990 where White, a strong Russian grandmaster, played
gain dynamic chances if he can open the position to
openly for the draw but was ground down by Short in 42
advantage.
moves.
• 3... Nc6 is known as the Guimard Variation: after To create genuine winning chances, White will often play
4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nd7 Black will exchange White’s c2–c4 at some stage to put pressure on Black’s d5-pawn.
cramping e-pawn next move by ...f6. However, Black can give White an isolated queen’s pawn by cap-
Black does not exert any pressure on d4 because he turing on c4, but this gives White’s pieces greater free-
cannot play ...c5, so White should maintain a slight dom, which may lead to attacking chances. This occurs in
advantage, with 6.Be2 or 6 Nb3. lines such as 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 (played by GMs Normunds
Miezis and Maurice Ashley) and 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4, which
• 3... Be7 is known as the Morozevich Varia- may transpose to the Petroff. Conversely, if White de-
tion.[4] A fashionable line among top GMs in re- clines to do this, Black may play ...c7–c5 himself, e.g.
cent years, this odd-looking move aims to prove that 4.Bd3 c5, as in the above-cited Tatai–Korchnoi game.
every White move now has its drawbacks, e.g. af-
ter 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 White cannot play f4, If c2–c4 is not played, White and Black have two main
whereas 4.Bd3 c5 5.dxc5 Nf6 and 4.e5 c5 5. Qg4 piece setups. White may put his pieces on Nf3, Bd3,
Kf8!? lead to obscure complications. 3...h6?!, Bg5 (pinning the black knight), Nc3, Qd2 or the queen’s
with a similar rationale, has also gained some ad- knight can go to d2 instead and White can support the
venturous followers in recent years, including GM centre with c3 and perhaps play Qb3. Conversely, when
Alexander Morozevich. the queen’s knight is on c3, the king’s knight may go to
e2 when the enemy bishop and knight can be kept out of
• Another rare line is 3... a6, which gained some pop- the key squares e4 and g4 by f3. When the knight is on
ularity in the 1970s. Similar to 3...Be7, the idea is c3 in the first and last of the above strategies, White may
to play a waiting move to make White declare his in- choose either short or long castling. The positions are so
tentions before Black commits to a plan of his own. symmetrical that the options and strategies are the same
3...a6 also controls the b5-square, which is typically for both sides.
114
Another way to unbalance the position is for White or 5.15.4 Early deviations for White
Black to castle on opposite sides of the board. An ex-
ample of this is the line 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 After 1.e4 e6, almost 90 percent of all games continue
7.0-0 Nge7 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nbd2 0-0-0.
Advance Variation: 3.e5
After 3.e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3
The main line of the Advance Variation continues 3... c5
4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 and then we have a branching point:
5... Qb6, the idea is to increase the pressure on d4
and eventually undermine the White centre. The queen
also attacks the b2-square, so White’s dark-square bishop
cannot easily defend the d4-pawn without losing the b2-
pawn. White’s most common replies are 6.a3 and 6.Be2.
6.a3 is currently the most important line in the Advance:
it prepares 7.b4, gaining space on the queenside. Black
may prevent this with 6...c4 intending to take en passant if
White plays b4, which creates a closed game where Black
fights for control of the b3-square. On the other hand,
Black may continue developing with 6...Nh6, intending
...Nf5, which might seem strange as White can double
the pawn with Bxh6, but this is actually considered good
for Black. Black plays ...Bg7 and ...0-0 and Black’s king
has adequate defence and White will miss his apparently
'bad' dark-square bishop.
6.Be2 is the other alternative, aiming simply to castle.
Once again, a common Black response is 6...Nh6 intend-
ing 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 attacking d4. White usually re-
sponds to this threat with 7.Bxh6 or 7.b3 preparing Bb2.
5... Bd7 was mentioned by Greco as early as 1620, and
was revived and popularised by Viktor Korchnoi in the
1970s. Now a main line, the idea behind the move is that
since Black usually plays ...Bd7 sooner or later, he plays
it right away and waits for White to show his hand. If
White plays 6.a3 in response, modern theory says that
Black equalises or is better after 6...f6! The lines are
complex, but the main point is that a3 is a wasted move if
the black queen is not on b6 and so Black uses the extra
tempo to attack the white centre immediately.
5...Nh6 has recently become a popular alternative
There are alternative strategies to 3... c5 that were tried
in the early 20th century such as 3...b6, intending to
fianchetto the bad bishop and which can transpose to
Owen’s Defence or 3...Nc6, played by Carlos Guimard,
intending to keep the bad bishop on c8 or d7 which is pas-
sive and obtains little counterplay. Also, 4...Qb6 5.Nf3
Bd7 intending 6...Bb5 to trade off the “bad” queen’s
bishop is possible.
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
2.d4 d5, but White can try other ideas. The most im-
portant of these is 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2, with a version of the
King’s Indian Attack. White will likely play Ngf3, g3,
Bg2, 0-0, c3 and/or Re1 in some order on the next few
moves. Black has several ways to combat this setup:
3...c5 followed by ...Nc6, ...Bd6, ...Nf6 or ...Nge7 and
...0-0 is common, 3...Nf6 4.Ngf3 Nc6 plans ...dxe4 and
...e5 to block in the Bg2, and 3...Nf6 4.Ngf3 b6 makes
...Ba6 possible if White’s light-square bishop leaves the
a6–f1 diagonal. 2.d3 has been used by many leading play-
ers over the years, including GMs Pal Benko, Bobby Fis-
cher and Lev Psakhis.
• 2.f4 is the Labourdonnais Variation, named after
Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, the 19th-
century French master.[5]
• 2.Qe2 is the Chigorin Variation, which discour-
ages 2...d5 because after 3.exd5 the black pawn is
pinned, meaning Black would need to recapture with
the queen. Black usually replies 2...c5, after which
play can resemble the 2.d3 variation or the Closed
Variation of the Sicilian Defence.
• 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 is the Two Knights Variation:
3...d4 and 3...Nf6 are good replies for Black.
• 2.c4 (attempting to discourage 2...d5 by Black) is
the Steiner Variation. But Black can reply 2...d5
anyway, when after 3.cxd5 exd5 4.exd5 Nf6 the only
way for White to hold on to his extra pawn on d5 is
to play 5.Bb5+. Black gets good compensation in
return for the pawn, however.
• 2.Bb5 has occasionally been tried. Notably, Henry
Bird defeated Max Fleissig with the variation during
the Vienna 1873 chess tournament.[6]
• 2.b3 leads to the Réti Gambit after 2...d5 3.Bb2
dxe4, but Black can also decline it with 3...Nf6 4.e5
Nd7 with White going for f4 and Qg4 before putting
the knight on f3.
There are also a few rare continuations after 1.e4 e6 2.d4
d5, including 3.Bd3 (the Schlechter Variation), 3.Be3
(the Alapin Gambit), and 3.c4 (the Diemer-Duhm Gam-
bit, which can also be reached via the Queen’s Gambit
Declined).
5.15.5 Early deviations for Black
Although 2...d5 is the most consistent move after 1.e4 e6
2.d4, Black occasionally plays other moves. Chief among
them is 2...c5, the Franco-Benoni Defence, so-called
because it features the c7–c5 push characteristic of the
Benoni Defence. White may continue 3.d5, when play
5.15. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT
can transpose into the Benoni, though White has extra
options since c2–c4 is not mandated. 3.Nf3, transposing
into a normal Sicilian Defence, and 3.c3, transposing into
a line of the Alapin Sicilian (usually arrived at after 1.e4
c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4) are also common. Play may also lead
back to the French; for example, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.c3 d5
4.e5 transposes into the Advance Variation.
5.15.6 History
The French Defence is named after a match played by
correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in
1834 (although earlier examples of games with the open-
ing do exist). It was Chamouillet, one of the players of
the Paris team, who persuaded the others to adopt this
defence.[7]
As a reply to 1.e4, the French Defence received relatively
little attention in the nineteenth century compared to
1...e5. The first world chess champion Wilhelm Steinitz
said “I have never in my life played the French Defence,
which is the dullest of all openings”.[8] In the early 20th
century, Géza Maróczy was perhaps the first world-class
player to make it his primary weapon against 1.e4. For
a long time, it was the third most popular reply to 1.e4,
behind only 1...c5 and 1...e5. However, according to the
Mega Database 2007, in 2006, 1...e6 was second only to
the Sicilian in popularity.
Historically important contributors to the theory of
the defence include Mikhail Botvinnik, Viktor Korch-
noi, Aron Nimzowitsch, Tigran Petrosian, Lev Psakhis,
Wolfgang Uhlmann and Rafael Vaganian. More re-
cently, its leading practitioners include Evgeny Bareev,
Alexey Dreev, Mikhail Gurevich, Alexander Khalifman,
Smbat Lputian, Alexander Morozevich, Teimour Rad-
jabov, Nigel Short, Gata Kamsky, and Yury Shulman.
The Exchange Variation was recommended by Howard
Staunton in the 19th century,[9] but has been in decline
ever since. In the early 1990s Garry Kasparov briefly ex-
perimented with it before switching to 3.Nc3. Note that
Black’s game is made much easier as his queen’s bishop
has been liberated. It has the reputation of giving im-
mediate equality to Black, due to the symmetrical pawn
structure.
Like the Exchange, the Advance Variation was fre-
quently played in the early days of the French Defence.
Aron Nimzowitsch believed it to be White’s best choice
and enriched its theory with many ideas. However, the
Advance declined in popularity throughout most of the
20th century until it was revived in the 1980s by GM
and prominent opening theoretician Evgeny Sveshnikov,
who continues to be a leading expert in this line. In re-
cent years, it has become nearly as popular as 3.Nd2; GM 5.15.8 See also
Alexander Grischuk has championed it successfully at the
highest levels. It is also a popular choice at the club level • List of chess openings
due to the availability of a simple, straightforward plan
involving attacking chances and extra space.
115
5.15.7 ECO codes
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings includes an al-
phanumeric classification system for openings that is
widely used in chess literature. Codes C00 to C19 are
the French Defence, broken up in the following way (all
apart from C00 start with the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5):
• C00 – 1.e4 e6 without 2.d4, or 2.d4 without 2...d5
(early deviations)
• C01 – 2.d4 d5 (includes the Exchange Variation,
3.exd5)
• C02 – 3.e5 (Advance Variation)
• C03 – 3.Nd2 (includes 3...Be7; C03–C09 cover the
Tarrasch Variation)
• C04 – 3.Nd2 Nc6 (Guimard Variation)
• C05 – 3.Nd2 Nf6
• C06 – 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3
• C07 – 3.Nd2 c5 (includes 4.exd5 Qxd5)
• C08 – 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5
• C09 – 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 Nc6
• C10 – 3.Nc3 (includes the Rubinstein Variation,
3...dxe4)
• C11 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 (includes the Steinitz Variation,
4.e5; C11–C14 cover the Classical Variation)
• C12 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (includes the McCutcheon
Variation, 4...Bb4)
• C13 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 (Burn Variation)
• C14 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7
• C15 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 (C15–C19 cover the Winawer
Variation)
• C16 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5
• C17 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5
• C18 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 (includes the Arme-
nian Variation, 5...Ba5)
• C19 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7
7.Nf3 and 7.a4
• List of chess openings named after places
116 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

5.15.9 References • Moskalenko, Viktor (2010). The Wonderful

Winawer. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-327-
[1] T.D. Harding, French: MacCutcheon [sic] and Advance 4.
Lines, Batsford, 1979, pp. 12, 56. ISBN 0-7134-2026-X.

[2] Although many sources refer to John Lindsay Mc-

Cutcheon and his eponymous variation as “Mac- 5.15.11 External links
Cutcheon”, “McCutcheon” is the correct spelling. Jeremy
Gaige, Chess Personalia, McFarland & Company, 1987, • The Anatomy of the French Advance
pp. 260, 275. ISBN 0-7864-2353-6; David Hooper and
Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd
ed. 1992), Oxford University Press, p. 240, p. 478 n.
1205. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
5.16 Caro-Kann Defence
[3] Steinitz–McCutcheon, New York simul 1885 The Caro–Kann Defence is a chess opening charac-
[4] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/688 terised by the moves:

[5] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=4&n=209& 1. e4 c6
ms=e4.e6.f4&ns=3.16.209

[6] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/2183872/ The Caro–Kann is a common defense against the King’s

rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/4p3/1B6/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/
RNBQK1NR%20b%20KQkq%20-%201%202
[7] Le Palamède edited by St. Amant (1846), p. 20.
[8] “The Cable Match Between Messrs.Tschigorin and
Steinitz”. The International Chess Magazine. 7.1. January
1891. p. 27. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
Pawn Opening and is classified as a "Semi-Open Game"
like the Sicilian Defence and French Defence, although it
is thought to be more solid and less dynamic than either
of those openings. It often leads to good endgames for
Black, who has the better pawn structure.

[9] p369, Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook, 5.16.1 History

1847, H.G.Bohn.
Final position after 17...Rc1
Bibliography
The opening is named after the English player Horatio
• Watson, John (2003). Play the French (3rd ed.). Ev- Caro and the Austrian player Marcus Kann who anal-
eryman Chess. ysed it in 1886. Kann scored an impressive 17-move
victory with the Caro–Kann Defence against German-
• Eingorn, Viacheslav (2008). Chess Explained: The British chess champion Jacques Mieses at the 4th German
French. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-95- Chess Congress in Hamburg in May 1885:
6.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3 Bxd3
5.Qxd3 e6 6.f4 c5 7.c3 Nc6 8.Nf3 Qb6
5.15.10 Further reading
9.0-0 Nh6 10.b3 cxd4 11.cxd4 Nf5 12.Bb2
• Keene, Raymond (1984). French Defence: Tarrasch Rc8 13.a3 Ncxd4 14.Nxd4 Bc5 15.Rd1 Nxd4
Variation. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-4577-7. 16.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 17.Qxd4 Rc1 0–1[1]

• Psakhis, Lev (2003). Advance and Other

Anti-French Variations. Batsford. ISBN 5.16.2 Main line: 2.d4 d5
9780713488432.
After 2. d4 d5 the most common moves are 3.Nc3 (Clas-
• Psakhis, Lev (2003). French Defence 3 Nd2. Ster- sical and Modern variations), 3.Nd2 (usually transposing
ling Pub. ISBN 9780713488258. into 3.Nc3), 3.exd5 (Exchange Variation), and 3.e5 (Ad-
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2008). The Flexible French. vance Variation).
New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-245-1.

• Tzermiadianos, Andreas (2008). How to Beat the 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2

French Defence: The Essential Guide to the Tar-
rasch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781857445671. 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2 usually transpose into each other after
3...dxe4 4.Nxe4. Since the 1970’s, 3.Nd2 has increased
• Vitiugov, Nikita (2010). The French Defence. in popularity to avoid the Gurgenidze Variation (3.Nc3
Chess Stars. ISBN 978-954-8782-76-0. g6), however some players choose to allow it.
5.16. CARO-KANN DEFENCE 117

Classical Variation: 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 Classical / Another solid positional line, this variation is charac-
Capablanca Variation after 4.Bf5 terised by the moves:

The most common way of handling the Caro–Kann, the
Classical Variation (often referred to as the Capablanca
Variation after José Capablanca), is defined by the moves:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 (or 3.Nd2) dxe4 4.Nxe4
Bf5
This was long considered to represent best play for both
sides in the Caro–Kann. White usually continues:
5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3
Bxd3 10.Qxd3
Although White’s pawn on h5 looks ready to attack, it can
prove to be a weakness in an endgame.[2]
Much of the Caro–Kann’s reputation as a solid defence
stems from this variation. Black makes very few com-
promises in pawn structure and plays a timely c6–c5 to
contest the d4-square. Variations with Black castling
queenside gave the Caro–Kann its reputation of being
solid but somewhat boring. More popular recently are
variations with Black castling kingside and even leaving
his king in the centre. These variations can be sharp and
dynamic.
Here is a brilliancy illustrating White’s attacking chances Specialist knowledge is a must to play this opening. Oth-
when the players castle on opposite sides in the Classical erwise Black could fall prey to early attacks such as the
Variation:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 (or 3.Nd2) dxe4 4.Nxe4
Nd7
At one time named after the first world champion
Wilhelm Steinitz, nowadays the variation is variously
referred to as the Smyslov Variation after the seventh
world champion Vasily Smyslov who played a number
of notable games with it, the Karpov Variation, after
the twelfth World Champion Anatoly Karpov, in whose
repertoire it appeared quite often, or, most commonly,
the Modern Variation. The short-term goal of 4...Nd7 is
to ease development by the early exchange of a pair of
Knights without compromising the structural integrity of
his position. Play is similar to the Classical Variation ex-
cept that Black has more freedom by delaying the devel-
opment of his bishop, and is not forced to play it to the g6
square. However, this freedom comes at a cost as White
enjoys added freedom in taking up space in the center,
and often plays the aggressive 5.Ng5!? where Black’s de-
velopment is brought into question as well as the posi-
tional weakness of the f7-square. The famous last game
of the Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov rematch where
Kasparov committed a known blunder and lost was played
in this very line.
quick mating trap for White 5.Qe2 and then 6.Nd6#.

Lev Milman–Joseph Fang, Foxwoods

3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ Starting point after
Open, 2005[2]
4...Nf6
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5
5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5
Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 (10...Qc7 The Bronstein–Larsen Variation and Korchnoi Variation
avoids White’s next) 11. Bf4 Bb4+ 12. c3 both begin with the following moves:
Be7 13. 0-0-0 Ngf6 14. Kb1 0-0 15. Ne5
c5?! (15...Qa5 is usual and better) 16. Qf3 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6!?
Qb6? (necessary was 16...cxd4 17.Rxd4 Nxe5 5.Nxf6+
18.Bxe5 Qc8 19.Rhd1 Rd8 20.Ne4 with a
small White advantage) 17. Nxd7 Nxd7 18.
d5 exd5 19. Nf5! Bf6 20. Rxd5 Qe6 21. Bronstein–Larsen Variation: 5...gxf6 Bronstein–
Bxh6 Ne5 (21...gxh6 22.Rd6 Qe8 23.Rxf6 Larsen Variation (5...gxf6!?)
Nxf6 24.Qg3+ mates on g7) 22. Qe4 Nc6 23.
Qf3 Ne5? (23...gxh6 24.Rd6 Qe5 25.Nxh6+ The Bronstein–Larsen Variation arises after:
Kg7 26.Nf5+ Kh7 with an unclear position)
24. Qe4 Nc6 25. Qg4! Qxd5 (25...Ne5 5...gxf6!?
26.Rxe5 Qxe5 27.Bxg7 Bxg7 28.h6 wins)
26. Bxg7 Qd3+ 27. Ka1 Ne5 28. Ne7+!!
Black has voluntarily opted for an inferior pawn struc-
Kh7 29. Qg6+!! fxg6 30. hxg6+ Kxg7 31.
ture and a practical necessity of castling queenside, while
Rh7# (White is down a queen, a rook, and a
gaining dynamic compensation in the form of the open
bishop!)[3][4]
g-file for the rook and unusually active play for the Caro–
Kann. It is generally considered somewhat unsound,
Modern Variation: 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 Modern though world championship challenger David Bronstein
Variation after 4...Nd7 and former world championship candidate Bent Larsen
employed it with some success.
118 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

Korchnoi Variation: 5...exf6 Korchnoi Variation is an important alternative and avoids the weight of theory
(5...exf6) associated with 3...Bf5. It was used by Mikhail Botvin-
nik in his 1961 match versus Mikhail Tal (though with a
The Korchnoi Variation arises after: negative outcome for Botvinnik – two draws and a loss).
The line was christened the “Arkell/Khenkin Variation”
in the leading chess magazine New in Chess yearbook 42
5...exf6 in recognition of the work these two Grandmasters did
and the success they were having with the variation. In
Viktor Korchnoi has played 5...exf6 many times (includ- comparison to the French Defence, Black lacks the tempo
ing his first world championship match with Anatoly Kar- normally spent on ...e6. However, White can only exploit
pov), and this line has also been employed by Ulf An- this by the weakening of his own central bind with 4. dxc5
dersson. Black’s 5...exf6 is regarded as sounder than when Black has good chances of regaining the pawn.
5...gxf6!? of the Bronstein–Larsen Variation and offers
Black rapid development, though also ceding White the Exchange Variation: 3.exd5 cxd5
superior pawn structure and long-term prospects (Black
has to be cautious that the d pawn is now a potential Exchange Variation
passed pawn in the endgame).
The Exchange Variation is 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5.
Gurgenidze Variation: 3.Nc3 g6 The Gurgenidze
Variation is 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6. Black prepares Main line: 4.Bd3 Exchange Variation 4.Bd3
to fianchetto the bishop on g7, creating pressure against
White’s d4 pawn. After 4.Nf3 Bg7 White usually plays
5.h3 to prevent the ...Bg4 pin. This variation, originated The “true” Exchange Variation begins with 4.Bd3 (to pre-
by Bukhuti Gurgenidze, led to a rise in the popularity vent ...Bf5 while still developing) Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4
of 3.Nd2 during the 1970s. After 3.Nd2, 3...g6 is met Bg4 7.Qb3. This line is considered to offer equal chances,
by 4.c3, when the fianchettoed bishop has little to do. and was tried by Bobby Fischer. Some of the strategic
3.Nd2 will usually transpose into the classical variation ideas are analogous to the Queen’s Gambit Declined, Ex-
after 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4. change Variation, (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5
exd5) with colours reversed.

Advance Variation: 3.e5 Panov–Botvinnik Attack: 4.c4 Panov–Botvinnik

Attack
Advance Variation with 3...Bf5

The Panov–Botvinnik Attack begins with the move 4.c4.

The 3...Bf5 variation that follows with:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5
has gained popularity after having previously been widely
regarded as inferior for many years, owing chiefly to the
strategic demolition that Aron Nimzowitsch (playing as
White) suffered at the hands of José Capablanca in one
of their games at the New York 1927 tournament.[5]
The Advance Variation has since been revitalized by ag-
gressive lines such as the Bayonet Attack (4.Nc3 e6 5.g4),
a popular line in the 1980s and later favoured by Latvian
Grandmaster Alexei Shirov, or the less ambitious vari-
ation 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.Be3, popularised by English
Grandmaster Nigel Short and often seen in the 1990s.
Advance variation with 3...c5
The 3...c5 variation that follows with:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5!?
It is named after Vasily Panov and the world champion
Mikhail Botvinnik. This system often leads to typical
isolated queen’s pawn (IQP) positions, with White ob-
taining rapid development, a grip on e5, and kingside at-
tacking chances to compensate for the long-term struc-
tural weakness of the isolated d4-pawn. The major vari-
ation in this line is 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3, when Black’s
main alternatives are 6...Bb4 (a position often transpos-
ing into lines of the Nimzo-Indian Defence) and 6...Be7,
once the most common line. 6...Nc6?! is inferior as it
is favourably met by 7.c5!, after which White plans on
seizing the e5-square by advancing the b-pawn to b5, or
by exchanging the black knight on c6 after Bb5.
5.16.3 Two Knights Variation: 2.Nc3 d5
3.Nf3
Two Knights Variation
The Two Knights Variation 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 (or
2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3) was played by Bobby Fischer in his
5.16. CARO-KANN DEFENCE
youth, but has since declined in popularity. White’s in-
tention is to benefit from rapid development as well as
to retain options regarding the d-pawn. Black’s logi-
cal and probably best reply is 3...Bg4. After 4.h3 Bxf3
5.Qxf3, the positional continuation, Black has the option
of 5...Nf6 or 5...e6. The Retreat Line 4...Bh5 is playable
but Black must be careful. In Noteboom-Mindeno 1927
Black lost quickly after 5.exd5 cxd5 6.g4 Bg6 7.Ne5 a6?
(7...Nc6 is necessary) 8.h4 d4 9.h5! dxc3 10.hxg6 cxd2+
11.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12.Bxd2 and Black must lose material.[6]
This variation sets a trap: if Black plays along the lines of
the Classical Variation, he gets in trouble after 3...dxe4
4.Nxe4 Bf5 (4...Nd7 is playable) 5.Ng3 Bg6?! (5...Bg4)
6.h4 h6 7.Ne5 Bh7 (7...Qd6 may be best) 8.Qh5! g6
(forced) 9.Bc4! e6 (9...gxh5?? 10.Bxf7#) 10.Qe2 with
a huge advantage for White. Now 10...Qe7! is best. In-
stead, Lasker-Radsheer, 1908 and Alekhine-Bruce, 1938
ended quickly after, respectively, 10...Bg7?? 11.Nxf7!
and 10...Nf6?? 11.Nxf7![7][8]
5.16.4 Other lines
White can play 2.c4. Then Black may play 2...d5 (see
1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5). This can transpose to the Panov–
Botvinnik (B14, given above, with exd5 cxd5 d4) or
Caro–Kann (B10, with the double capture on d5). Or
Black may play 2...e5 (see 1.e4 c6 2.c4 e5). The 2.c4
line sometimes arises by transposition from the English
Opening: 1.c4 c6 2.e4.
Fantasy or Tartakower Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.f3, which somewhat resembles the Blackmar–Diemer
Gambit. 3...e6 is probably the most solid response,
preparing to exploit the dark squares via ...c5, though
3....g6 has been tried by Yasser Seirawan. GM Lars
Schandorff and GM Sam Shankland both prefer 3...dxe4
4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bc4 Nd7 7.0-0 Ngf6 8.c3 Bd6
with play being sharp and double-edged. Interesting,
though probably insufficient is 3...e5. This so-called
'Twisted Fantasy Variation' aims to exploit white’s weak-
nesses on the a7-g1 diagonal. An idea which is similar
to 3...Qb6, a variation championed by Baadur Jobava.
Related to the Fantasy Variation are the gambits 1.e4 c6
2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3, originated by Sir Stuart Milner-
Barry, and 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3
by (von Hennig).
Hillbilly Attack: [9][10]
1.e4 c6 2.Bc4?! This is most of-
ten played by weaker players who are unfamiliar with
the Caro-Kann Defence. If 2...d5 3. exd5 cxd5, Black
has simply gained a tempo on the bishop. Neverthe-
less GM Simon Williams has experimented with this
move, following it up by gambiting the pawn with 2...d5
3.Bb3!?[11]
The Dunst Attack The Dunst Opening, 1.Nc3, has many
transpositional possibilities, and one of them involves
the Caro–Kann. After the moves 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5
3.Qf3!?, White’s position is sound according to Graham
119
Burgess.[12]
5.16.5 ECO codes
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has ten
codes for the Caro–Kann Defence, B10 through B19:
• B10 - Miscellaneous 2nd moves by White
• Hillbilly Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4
• Modern; English Variation, Accelerated
Panov: 1.e4 c6 2.c4
• Breyer Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d3
• Massachusetts Defense: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 f5
• Masi Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Nf6
• Scorpion-Horus Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5
3.d3 dxe4 4.Bg5
• Spielmann/Goldman Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3
d5 3.Qf3
• Two Knights Variation (without 3...Bg4): 1.e4
c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3
• Apocalypse Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5
cxd5 4.Ne5
• B11 - Two Knights Variation with 3...Bg4
• B12 - Miscellaneous lines with 2.d4
• Landau Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Bd3 Nf6
4.e5 Nfd7 6.e6
• Mieses Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3
• Diemer–Duhm Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.c4
• Advance Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5
• Prins Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.b4
• Bayonet Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5
4.g4
• Tal Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4
• Van der Wiel Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5
4.Nc3
• Dreyev Defense: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5
4.Nc3 Qb6
• Bronstein Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5
4.Ne2
• Short Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5
4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2
• Botvinnik–Carls Defense: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.e5 c5
• Maroczy Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3
• Fantasy/Lilienfisch Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.f3
• Maroczy Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 dxe4
4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Bc4
120
• Modern Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2
• New Caro–Kann 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 g6
• Edinburgh Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2
Qb6
• Ulysses Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4
4.Ng5
• De Bruycker Defense: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6
• Hector Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4
4.Ng5
• B13 - Exchange Variation
• Rubinstein Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5
cxd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4
• Panov–Botvinnik: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5
cxd5 4.c4
• Panov–Botvinnik, Gedult-Gunderam Attack:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.c5
• B14 - Panov-Botvinnik Attack with 5...e6
• Carlsbad Line: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5
4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6
• Czerniak Line: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5
4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Qa5
• Reifir–Spielmann Line: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Qb6
• B15 - 3.Nc3, miscellaneous lines
• Gurgenidze Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
b5
• Von Hennig Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Bc4
• Milner–Barry Gambit, Rasa-Studier Gambit:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3
• Knight Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Nf6
• Tarrasch/Alekhine Gambit: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Bd3
• Tartakower Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6
• Forgacs Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.Bc4
• Gurgenidze System: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6
• Gurgenidze Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
g6 4.e5 Bg7 5.f4 h5
• Campomanes Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
Nf6
• B16 - Bronstein-Larsen Variation
• Finnish Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 h6
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
• Bronstein–Larsen Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6
• Korchnoi Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6
• B17 - Steinitz Variation
• Karpov Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Nd7
• Smyslov Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bc4 Ngf6 6.Ng5 e6 7.Qe2
Nb6
• Tiviakov–Fischer Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bc4 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+
Nxf6
• Kasparov Attack: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3
• Ivanchuk Defense: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ndf6
• B18 - Classical Variation
• Classical Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5
• Flohr Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Nh3
• B19 - Classical Variation with 7...Nd7
• Spassky Variation: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3
Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3
5.16.6 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
5.16.7 References
[1] Jacques Mieses vs Marcus Kann
[2] Schiller, p. 33
[3] Notes based on Milman’s much more extensive notes in
Chess Life, July 2005, pp. 11–12.
[4] Milman-Fang, 7th Foxwoods Open 2005. Chess-
Games.com. Retrieved on 2009-10-30.
[5]
[6] Noteboom-Mindeno 1927
[7] Lasker-Radsheer, simultaneous exhibition 1908. Chess-
Games.com. Retrieved on 2009-04-14.
[8] Alekhine-R. Bruce, Plymouth 1938. ChessGames.com.
Retrieved on 2009-04-14.
5.17. PIRC DEFENCE 121

[9] Watson, John (2015). Taming Wild Chess Openings: How 5.17.1 General remarks
to Deal with the Good, the Bad and the Ugly over the Chess
Board. New In Chess. p. 148. ISBN 978-90-5691-571- The Pirc Defence is a relatively new opening; while it
1. Extract of page 148 was seen on occasion in the late nineteenth century, it
[10] Schiller, Eric (1998). Unorthodox Chess Openings (illus- was considered irregular, thus remaining a sideline. The
trated ed.). Cardoza. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-940685-73-4. opening began gaining some popularity only after World
War II, and by the 1960s it was regarded as playable, ow-
[11] Simon Kim Williams vs Gawain Jones, 4NCL 2011 at
ing in large part to the efforts of Canadian Grandmas-
chessgames.com
ter Duncan Suttles. Black, in hypermodern fashion, does
[12] The Dunst: Attacking the Caro-Kann with an early Queen not immediately stake a claim in the centre with pawns;
sortie rather, Black works to undermine White’s centre from
the flanks. Its first appearance in a World Championship
Bibliography match was in 1972, when it was played by Bobby Fischer
against Boris Spassky at Reykjavík (game 17); the game
• Schiller, Eric (2003). Complete Defense to King ended in a draw.
Pawn Openings (2nd ed.). Cardoza. ISBN 978-1-
58042-109-6. Pirc Defence normally refers to the opening moves 1. e4
d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6. This is the most commonly
played line after Black responds to 1.e4 with 1...d6.[1]
5.16.8 Further reading It has been claimed to give rise to somewhat interesting
and exciting games,[2] where Black will have counterplay
• Houska, Jovanka (2007). Play the Caro-Kann: A but has to be cautious about playing too passively.[3] Ac-
Complete Chess Opening Repertoire Against 1 e4. cording to Garry Kasparov, the Pirc Defence is “hardly
London: Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-434-5. worth using in the tournaments of the highest category”,
as it gives White “too many opportunities for anybody’s
• Wells, Peter (2007). Grandmaster Secrets – The
liking”.[4]
Caro-Kann. London: Gambit Publications. ISBN
978-1-904600-61-9. A distinction is usually drawn between the Pirc and lines
where Black delays the development of his knight to f6,
• The ABC of the Caro Kann, Andrew Martin,
or omits it altogether; this is known as the Modern or
ChessBase Publications, 2007, Fritz Trainer DVD.
Robatsch Defence. The tenth edition of Modern Chess
• Karpov, Anatoly (2006). Caro-Kann Defence: Openings (1965) grouped the Pirc and Robatsch together
Advance Variation and Gambit System. London: as the “Pirc–Robatsch Defense”.
Anova Books. ISBN 0-7134-9010-1.
• Gallagher, Joe (2002). Starting Out: the Caro-Kann. 5.17.2 Main line: 3...g6
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-303-9.
Austrian Attack: 4.f4
• Silman, Jeremy (1990). Dynamic Karo Kann. Sum-
mit Pub. ISBN 978-0-945806-02-8.
Main article: Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack
• Kasparov, Garry; Shakarov, Aleksander (1984).
Caro-Kann: Classical 4.Bf5. Batsford. ISBN 0- The Austrian Attack begins 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6
7134-4237-9. 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3, and was a favourite of Fischer. It is
• Keene, Raymond; Mednis, Edmar; Soltis, Andy also well respected by Nick de Firmian, the author of
(2004). Understanding The Caro-Kann Defense. Modern Chess Openings (MCO). In placing pawns on d4,
Hardinge Simpole Limited. ISBN 978-1-84382- e4 and f4, White establishes a powerful centre, intending
134-2. to push in the centre and/or attack on the kingside; in the
main line, Black will usually counter with e5, aiming for
play against the dark squares and weaknesses created by
5.17 Pirc Defence White’s central advance. This direct, aggressive line is
one of the most ambitious systems against the Pirc. Jan
Timman has played the Austrian successfully with both
The Pirc Defence (correctly pronounced “peerts”, but colours. Yuri Balashov does well with the White pieces,
often mispronounced “perk”), sometimes known as the and Valery Beim has an impressive score on the Black
Ufimtsev Defence or Yugoslav Defence, is a chess open- side.
ing characterised by Black responding to 1.e4 with 1...d6
and 2...Nf6, followed by ...g6 and ...Bg7, while allow-
ing White to establish an impressive-looking centre with 5...0-0 The most frequently played variation after 5...0-
pawns on d4 and e4. It is named after the Slovenian 0 is the Weiss Variation, 6.Bd3, with 6...Nc6 the most
Grandmaster Vasja Pirc. common response, though 6....Na6, with the idea of
122 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

....Nc7, ....Rb8 and ....b5 was tried in the 1980s after The Argentines feared the sally ...Ng4, though some
6....Nc6 was found to offer Black few winning chances. British players (especially Mark Hebden, Paul Motwani,
6.e5 is a sharp try, with unclear consequences, which was Gary Lane, later also Michael Adams) came to realise
much played in the 1960s, though it has never attained that this was mainly dangerous for Black, therefore play-
popularity at the highest levels. 6.Be2 is another move ing Be3 and Qd2 in all sorts of move orders, whilst omit-
which was often seen in the 1950s and early 1960s, al- ting f2–f3. They called this the 150 Attack, because only
though the defeat sustained by Fischer in the game given players of this strength (about ELO 1800) could be naive
in the sample games spurred White players, including Fis- enough to expect mate in 25 moves.[5]
cher, to turn to 6.Bd3. In the 1980s, 6.Be2 c5 7.dxc5 Qa5
The original Argentine idea probably is only viable after
8.0-0 Qxc5+ 9.Kh1 was revived. 6.Be3 is another possi- 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 0-0 6.0-0-0 c6 (or Nc6) 7.f3 b5 8.h4.
bility, explored in the 1970s.
Black usually does not castle though and prefers 5...c6 or
even 4...c6. The question of whether and when to insert
5...c5 Black’s chief alternative to 5...0-0 lies in an im- Nf3 remains unclear.
mediate strike against the White centre with 5...c5, to
which the usual response is either 6.dxc5 or 6.Bb5+. The
former allows 6...Qa5. The latter promises a tactical
melee, with a common line being 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4
8.e6 (8.h3 or 8.Bxd7+ are other possibilities) fxe6, which
was thought bad, until Yasser Seirawan played the move Other systems
against Gyula Sax in 1988 (8...Bxb5 is the alternative, if
Black does not want the forced draw in the main line)
9.Ng5 Bxb5! 4.Bg5 was introduced by Robert Byrne in the 1960s, after
Now if White tries 10.Nxe6, Black has 10...Bxd4!, ig- which Black has often played the natural 4...Bg7, though
noring the threat to his queen, in view of 11.Nxd8 Bf2+ 4...c6 is considered more flexible, as Black may wish to
12.Kd2 Be3+ with a draw by perpetual check. White can save a tempo in anticipation of White’s plan of Qd2, fol-
instead try 11.Nxb5, with complicated play. lowed by Bh6, by deferring Bg7 as long as possible, play-
ing for queenside activity with b7–b5 and Qa5. White’s
White can also essay the sharp 6.e5 against 5...c5, after idea of Qd2 and Bh6 may give a transposition to the lines
which 6...Nfd7 7.exd6 0-0 is considered to offer good play with Be3 and Qd2. A less common method of playing
for Black. this system is 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5.
4.Bc4 Bg7 5.Qe2 is a sharp try for advantage; 5...Nc6
Classical (Two Knights) System: 4.Nf3 can lead to hair-raising complications after 6.e5, when
Black’s best line may be 6...Ng4 7.e6 Nxd4 8.Qxg4
The Classical (Two Knights) System begins 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nxc2+, avoiding the more frequently played 6...Nxd4
Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0. White con- 7.exf6 Nxe2 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Ngxe2 Rxg7, which has been
tents himself with the 'classical' pawn centre with pawns generally considered to lead to an equal or unclear posi-
at e4 and d4, forgoing the committal move f2–f4 as tion, though White has scored heavily in practice. An-
Black castles and builds a compact structure. Efim Geller, other possibility for Black is 5...c6, though 6.e5 dxe5
Anatoly Karpov and Evgeni Vasiukov have all success- 7.dxe5 Nd5 8.Bd2, followed by long castling, gives White
fully used this system for White; Zurab Azmaiparashvili the advantage, as Black’s position is cramped and he lacks
has scored well as Black. The most common responses active counterplay. 6...Nd7 is now considered fine for
for Black are 6...Bg4, 6...c6 or 6...Nc6, with 6...Bg4 the Black, in view of 7.e6?! fxe6 8.Qxe6 Nde5! 9.Qd5
main line from the mid-1960s onwards. e6 with advantage to Black. If White instead plays the
better 7.Nf3, Black has multiple solid choices, including
0-0 and Nb6 (followed by Na5), which is considered to
The 150 and Argentine Attacks equalise.

The setup f2–f3, Be3 and Qd2 is commonly used against 4.g3 and 5.Bg2, followed by Nge2, is a solid line, which
the King’s Indian Defence and Dragon Sicilian, and can was sometimes adopted by Karpov.
also be used against the Pirc; indeed, this system is as old
4.Be3 is another alternative, usually seen at club level.
as the Pirc itself. This line is relatively passive and does not provide much
The system 4.f3 was introduced by Argentine players c. scope for White’s attack and 4.Bf4 and 4.Bg5 are consid-
1930 and again in 1950. It was never considered danger- ered to be stronger lines.
ous for Black because of 4.f3 Bg7 5.Be3 c6 6.Qd2 b5. 4.Be2 may transpose into the classical variation after
It received a severe blow in about 1985, when Gennady 4...Bg7 5.Nf3, or White may try one of two highly ag-
Zaichik showed that Black could castle anyway and play gressive lines, the Bayonet Attack (5.h4) or the Chinese
a dangerous gambit with 5...0-0 6.Qd2 e5. Variation (5.g4).
5.17. PIRC DEFENCE
5.17.3 Early deviations
After 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3, Black has an alternative to
3...g6 (Main line) known as the Pribyl System or Czech
Defence, beginning 3...c6. The lines often transpose to
the Pirc if Black later plays ...g6; alternatively, Black can
play Qa5 and e5 to challenge White’s centre, or expand
on the queenside with b5.
A common deviation by Black in recent practice is 1.e4
d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5. This has been tried by many
GMs over the years, including Zurab Azmaiparashvili
and Christian Bauer. White’s 4.dxe5 is known to be
equal, and play normally continues 4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+
Kxd8 6.Bc4 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6. Instead, White normally
transposes to the Philidor Defence with 4.Nf3.
An unusual but quite reasonable deviation for White is
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3. At the 1989 Barcelona World Cup
event, former world champion Garry Kasparov surprised
American Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan with this move.
After 3...g6 4.c4, an unhappy Seirawan found himself de-
fending the King’s Indian Defence for the first time in his
life,[6] though he managed to draw the game. Black can
avoid a King’s Indian with 3...e5, which may lead to an
Old Indian type of position after 4.d5, or with 3...d5. This
can transpose to the Classical Variation of the French De-
fence after 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 e6 6.Nf3, to the Tarrasch Vari-
ation of the French Defence after 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 e6 6.c3
c5 7.Nd2 Nc6 8.Ndf3, or even to the Blackmar–Diemer
Gambit with an extra tempo for White after 4.Nc3 dxe4
5.Bg5 exf3 6.Nxf3.
5.17.4 Sample games
• In the following game, Azmaiparashvili uses the
Pirc to defeat reigning world champion Karpov.
Karpov vs. Azmaiparashvili, USSR Cham-
pionship, Moscow 1983
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Be2
0-0 6.0-0 Bg4 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 Ne7
10.Rad1 b5 11.a3 a5 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4
Ra3 14.Bg5 Rxc3 15.Bxf6 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Ra3
17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Ra1 Qa8 19.Rxa3 Qxa3
20.Be2 Qb2 21.Rd1 f5 22.exf5 Nxf5 23.c3
Qxd2 24.Rxd2 Ra8 25.Bxb5 Ra3 26.Rc2 Ne7
27.f4 exf4 28.Bc6 Nf5 29.Kf2 Ne3 30.Rc1
Kf6 31.g3 Ke5 32.Kf3 g5 33.gxf4+ gxf4 34.h4
Nxd5 35.Bxd5 Kxd5 36.Kxf4 Kc4 37.Re1
Rxc3 38.Re7 Kxb4 39.Rxh7 d5 40.Ke5 c6
41.Kd4 Rc4+ 0–1
• Kasparov’s Immortal; Rook and Knight Sacrifice.
Kasparov vs. Veselin Topalov, Wijk aan
Zee 1999
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2
123
c6 6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6
Bb7 10.a3 e5 11.0-0-0 Qe7 12.Kb1 a6 13.Nc1
0-0-0 14.Nb3 exd4 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Rd1 Nb6
17.g3 Kb8 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Bh3 d5 20.Qf4+
Ka7 21.Rhe1 d4 22.Nd5 Nbxd5 23.exd5
Qd6 24.Rxd4 cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+
Kxa5 27.b4+ Ka4 28.Qc3 Qxd5 29.Ra7 Bb7
30.Rxb7 Qc4 31.Qxf6 Kxa3 32.Qxa6+ Kxb4
33.c3+ Kxc3 34.Qa1+ Kd2 35.Qb2+ Kd1
36.Bf1 Rd2 37.Rd7 Rxd7 38.Bxc4 bxc4
39.Qxh8 Rd3 40.Qa8 c3 41.Qa4+ Ke1 42.f4
f5 43.Kc1 Rd2 44.Qa7 1–0
• Tal The Magician; Rook Sacrifice.
Mikhail Tal vs. Tigran Petrosian, Moscow
1974
1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Be2
0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 7.d5 Nb8 8.Re1 e5 9.dxe6 Bxe6
10.Bf4 h6 11.Nd4 Bd7 12.Qd2 Kh7 13.e5
dxe5 14.Bxe5 Ne4 15.Nxe4 Bxe5 16.Nf3 Bg7
17.Rad1 Qc8 18.Bc4 Be8 19.Neg5+ hxg5
20.Nxg5+ Kg8 21.Qf4 Nd7 22.Rxd7 Bxd7
23.Bxf7+ 1–0
• Candidates Jewel; Bishop Sacrifice.
Fischer vs. Viktor Korchnoi, Curaçao 1962
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3
0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.dxc5 Qa5 8.0-0 Qxc5+ 9.Kh1
Nc6 10.Nd2 a5 11.Nb3 Qb6 12.a4 Nb4 13.g4?
Bxg4! 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qxg4 Nxc2 16.Nb5
Nxa1 17.Nxa1 Qc6 18.f5 Qc4 19.Qf3 Qxa4
20.Nc7 Qxa1 21.Nd5 Rae8 22.Bg5 Qxb2
23.Bxe7 Be5 24.Rf2 Qc1+ 25.Rf1 Qh6 26.h3
gxf5 27.Bxf8 Rxf8 28.Ne7+ Kh8 29.Nxf5
Qe6 30.Rg1 a4 31.Rg4 Qb3 32.Qf1 a3 33.Rg3
Qxg3 0–1[7]
• “Cheap’s” Sacrifice.
Hikaru Nakamura vs. Ilya Smirin, Fox-
woods Open 2005
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 Nf6 5.Nf3
0-0 6.e5 Nfd7 7.h4 c5 8.h5 cxd4 9.hxg6
dxc3 10.gxf7+ Rxf7 11.Bc4 Nf8 12.Ng5 e6
13.Nxf7 cxb2 14.Bxb2 Qa5+ 15.Kf1 Kxf7
16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Bd3 Qb4 18.Rb1 Bd7 19.c4
Qd2 20.Bxh7+ Nxh7 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Rh4
1–0
5.17.5 ECO codes
Some of the systems employed by White against the Pirc
Defence include the following:
124 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

• 4.Bc4 (ECO B07) Kholmov System (4.Bc4 Bg7 5.17.8 Further reading
5.Qe2)
• John Nunn and Colin McNab, The Ultimate Pirc
• 4.Be2 (ECO B07) sub-variants after 4.Be2 Bg7 in- (Batsford, 1998)
clude the Chinese Variation, 5.g4 and the Bayonet
(Mariotti) Attack, 5.h4 • Alexander Chernin and Lev Alburt, Pirc Alert!
(London, 2001)
• 4.Be3 (ECO B07) 150 or “Caveman” Attack (4.Be3
c6 5.Qd2) • Jacques Le Monnier, La défense Pirc en 60 parties,
(Paris, Editions Grasset/Europe Echecs, 1983 for
• 4.Bg5 (ECO B07) Byrne Variation
the first edition), ISBN 2-246-28571-2
• 4.g3 (ECO B07) Sveshnikov System
• Gallagher, Joe (2003), Starting Out: The
• 4.Nf3 (ECO B08) Classical (Two Knights) System Pirc/Modern, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-
(sub-variants after 4...Bg7 include 5.h3 and 5.Be2) 336-5
• 4.f4 (ECO B09) Austrian Attack (sub-variants after
4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 include 6.e5, 6.Be2, 6.Bd3 and
6.Be3; also, after 4...Bg7 is 5.Bc4, the Ljubojevic 5.18 Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack
Variation; Black also has the option to move into the
Dragon Formation after 5.Nf3 with 5...c5) The Austrian Attack variation of the Pirc Defence is a
chess opening characterised by the following moves:

5.17.6 See also

1. e4 d6
• List of chess openings 2. d4 Nf6
• List of chess openings named after people 3. Nc3 g6
4. f4 Bg7
5.17.7 References
Typical continuations include the main line 5.Nf3 0-0, an
[1] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer immediate kingside attack with 5.e5 Nfd7, or a queenside
counterattack with 5.Nf3 c5.
[2] http://www.chess.com/article/view/
openings-for-tactical-players-pirc-defense The Pirc Defence is one of several hypermodern re-
sponses to the opening move 1.e4. The aim of the Aus-
[3] http://www.thechesswebsite.com/pirc-defense/
trian Attack is to take advantage of Black’s hypermodern
[4] Garry Kasparov. “Tournament in Wijk aan Zee (anno- approach by establishing a broad pawn centre early in the
tated by G. Kasparov)". gameknot.com. Retrieved 2014- game. The general strategy for White is to use the pawn
05-31. on f4 to support a breakthrough with e4–e5.[1] Black will
often castle early and attempt to find counterplay with c7–
[5] Richard Palliser gives a different reason on page 249
of Starting Out: d-pawn Attacks: "[...] named because c5, or in some cases, e7–e5,[2] or the development of the
[3]
White’s position is supposed to be so easy to play that a queenside knight.
reasonable club player (150 British rating corresponds to
an Elo of 1800) can obtain a good position with it against
even a grandmaster!" Sam Collins on page 110 of Under- 5.18.1 Performance
standing the Chess Opening says it is so named because
“even a 150-rated player can handle the white side.” The Chessgames.com master game database records ap-
proximately 1850 games which opened with the Aus-
[6] http://www.chessgames.com database for Seirawan
trian Attack. Of those games, White won 39.4%, Black
games with Black.
won 28%, and the remaining 32.6% were draws.[4]
[7] Bartholomew, John. “Bobby Fischer vs. Viktor Korchnoi, Siegbert Tarrasch successfully employed the Austrian
Curacao 1962”. YouTube. Retrieved July 10, 2016. Attack against Rudolf Charousek in 1896, securing a
win in just 17 moves.[5] Edward Lasker unsuccessfully
Bibliography used the opening against Miguel Najdorf, resigning after
42 moves.[6] In 1952, Isaac Boleslavsky tried the open-
• Collins, Sam (2005), Understanding the Chess Open- ing against Vasja Pirc (after whom the Pirc Defence is
ings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-904600-28-X named), but they agreed to a draw after move 62.[7]
• Palliser, Richard (2008), Starting out: d-pawn at- In the 17th game of the 1972 World Chess Champi-
tacks. The Colle–Zukertort, Barry and 150 Attacks, onship, Boris Spassky opened with 1.e4. Bobby Fischer
Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-578-7 responded with the Pirc Defence, for the only time in his
5.19. BALOGH DEFENSE
career.[8] Spassky played the Austrian Attack. The game It may also arise by transposition from the Staunton Gam-
proceeded as follows:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3
c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd3 Qxc5 8.Qe2 0-0 9.Be3
Qa5 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Rad1 Nc6 12.Bc4 Nh5
13.Bb3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qxc3 15.f5 Nf6 16.h3
Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Na5 18.Rd3 Qc7 19.Bh6 Nxb3
20.cxb3 Qc5+ 21.Kh1 (see diagram) Qe5
By playing 21...Qe5 instead of 21...Rf8–c8, Fischer of-
fered the exchange sacrifice as a means of blunting
Spassky’s kingside attack. The game ended on move 45
owing to draw by agreement despite Spassky having a
slight material advantage.[8][9]
5.18.2 References
Notes
[1] Botterill 1973, p. 3
[2] Botterill 1973, p. 39
[3] Botterill 1973, p. 54
[4] Chess Opening Explorer on Chessgames.com
[5] Siegbert Tarrasch vs Rudolf Rezso Charousek on Chess-
games.com
[6] Edward Lasker vs Miguel Najdorf on Chessgames.com
[7] Isaac Boleslavsky vs Vasja Pirc on Chessgames.com
[8] Botterill 1973, p. 118
[9] Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer on Chess-
games.com
Bibliography
• Botterill, G. S. & Keene, R. D. (1973). Wade, R.
G., ed. The Pirc Defence. London: B. T. Batsford.
ISBN 0-7134-0361-6.
5.19 Balogh Defense
The Balogh Defense (also known as the Balogh Counter
Gambit) is an unusual chess opening beginning with the
moves:
1. e4 d6
2. d4 f5
125
bit against the Dutch Defense, 1.d4 f5 2.e4!?, if Black
declines the gambit with 2...d6.
The defense is named for János Balogh (1892–
1980), who was a Hungarian International Master of
correspondence chess, and a strong master at over-the-
board chess. The opening is rarely seen today because it
weakens Black’s kingside somewhat and often results in a
backward e-pawn and/or a hole on e6 after Black’s light-
square bishop is exchanged. International Correspon-
dence Chess Master Keith Hayward has recently written
a series of articles arguing that the defense, though risky,
is playable.[1]
5.19.1 Illustrative games
• The following game shows U.S. Champion Hikaru
Nakamura using the Balogh Defense to beat a
grandmaster:
Perelshteyn (2579)–Nakamura (2662), HB
Global Chess Challenge 2005
1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Bd3 Qd7
5.Qf3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 e6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.0-0 0-
0-0 9.c4 Nf6 10.Nc3 d5!? 11.c5 h6 12.b4!
g5 13.b5 Na5! 14.Re1 Re8 15.Bd2 Nc4
16.Ne5 Qh7 17.Qe2 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Nd7 19.c6
Nb6 20.cxb7+ Kxb7 21.Be3 Bb4 22.Qb2?!
Ba5! 23.Bd4 Nc4 24.Qe2 Rhf8 25.Red1
Bb6 26.Na4 Rf4 27.Nc5+ Kc8 28.Nb3 Qe4
29.Qxe4 Rxe4 30.a4 Bxd4 31.Nxd4 Nxe5
32.f3 Rf4 33.Ra2 Nc4 34.Nc6 a5 35.Re2 Rff8
36.Kf2 g4 37.Rd4 gxf3 38.gxf3 Kb7 39.Rxc4
dxc4 40.Nxa5+ Kb6 41.Nxc4+ Kc5 42.Ne5
Rf5 43.Re4 Ra8 44.Ke3 Rxa4! 45.Rxa4
Rxe5+ 46.Kf4 Rf5+ 47.Ke4 Kxb5 48.Ra7 Kc6
49.Ra6+ Kd7 50.Ra2 Rd5 51.Rg2 c5 52.Ra2
Ke7 53.Ra7+ Rd7 54.Ra8 Rd4+ 55.Ke5 Rd5+
56.Ke4 Rh5 57.Ra7+ Kd6 58.Ra6+ Kd7
59.Ra7+ Kc6 60.Ra6+ Kb5 61.Rxe6 Rxh2
62.Kd3 h5 63.Re8 h4 and Black won. 0–1
• Most books, if they mention the Balogh Defense
at all, say that it is refuted by 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Qf3
Qc8 5.Bd3. Hayward believes that this game shows
Black’s best line against that variation:
W. Jones–Hayward, correspondence 2000
1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Qf3 Qc8
5.Bd3 Bg4 6.Qf4 g6 7.Nc3 Bh6 8.Qg3 Bg7
9.Nge2 Nf6 10.Bg5 Nc6 11.f3 Bf5 12.Bxf5
Qxf5 13.0–0–0 e6 14.Rhe1 0–0 15.Nf4
Rae8 16.Re2 e5 17.dxe5 Rxe5 18.Rxe5 Qxe5
19.Re1 Qf5 20.Qh4 Re8 21.Rxe8+ Nxe8
22.Ncd5 Qe5 23.c3 a6 24.a3 Qf5 25.Ne3
Qd7 26.Nfd5 Qe6 27.f4 b5 28.f5 gxf5 29.Qf4
Ne5 30.Kb1 h6 31.Bh4 Bf8 32.Qxf5 Qxf5+
126
33.Nxf5 c6 34.Nde3 Kf7 35.Bg3 Ke6 36.Kc2
c5 37.Bf4 h5 38.Ng3 Nf6 39.Bg5 Neg4
40.Nxg4 hxg4 41.h4 gxh3 42.gxh3 d5 43.Kd3
Bd6 44.Ne2 Ne4 45.Be3 Kf5 46.b4 c4+
47.Kd4 Be5+ 48.Kxd5 Nxc3+ 49.Nxc3 Bxc3
50.h4 ½–½
• Hayward believes that the following game shows
best play by Black in what he considers the main
line:
Hayward–Owens, e-mail 1998
1. e4 d6 2. d4 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bd3
fxe4 Balogh liked 4...Nc6, but Hayward con-
siders 5.exf5! Nxd4 6.g4 difficult for Black.
5. Nxe4 Nxe4 6. Bxe4 An earlier game
between these players continued 6.h4 Nxe4
7.Bxe4 d5 8.Bd3 Bg7 9.h5 Qd6 10.Nf3 Nc6
11.hxg6 hxg6 12.Rxh8+ Bxh8 13.Be3 Bg4
14.c3 0-0-0 15.Qa4 Bxf3 16.gxf3 e5 17.dxe5
Nxe5 18.Be2 a6 and Black was fine (0–1, 31).
g6 7. Nf3 Rimlinger–Hayward, correspon-
dence 2000 went 7.Qf3 c6 8.Bg5 Nd7 9.Qe3
Bg7 10.0-0-0 Nf6 11.Bf3 Bf5 12.Ne2 h6
13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.h4 Qa5 15.Kb1 0-0-0 16.g4
Bd7 17.Nf4 g5 18.Ne6 Bxe6 19.Qxe6+ Kb8
20.hxg5 hxg5 21.c3 d5 22.Rh5 Qc7 23.Rdh1
Rhf8 24.Rh7 Qd6 25.Qe3 e5 26.dxe5 Bxe5
and Black had the superior pawn structure (but
½–½, 54). d5 8. Bd3 Bg7 9. 0-0 Nc6 10. c3
0-0 11. Bg5 Qd6 12. h3 Bf5 13. Re1 Rae8
14. Re3 e5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Rxe5
17. Rxe5 Bxe5 18. Bh6 Re8 19. Bxf5 gxf5
20. Qh5 Qg6 21. Qxg6+ hxg6 22. Rd1 c6
½–½
5.19.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
5.19.3 References
[1] Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 1 from Alexander Alekhine used it to draw against World Cham-
Chessville.com
5.19.4 External links
• Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 1
• Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 2:
Janos Balogh, the Man and His Games
• Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 3:
White plays an early exf5
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
• Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 4:
Balogh’s Main Line
• Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 5:
Remaining Lines
• Hayward, Keith R. Balogh Counter Gambit, Part 6
(analysis of Perelshteyn–Nakamura)
• Symmetry and chaos: Balogh’s Defense. from
Chesscafe.com
5.20 Scandinavian Defense
The Scandinavian Defense (or Center Counter De-
fense) is a chess opening characterized by the moves:
1. e4 d5
5.20.1 History
Origin
The Center Counter Defense is one of the oldest recorded
openings, first recorded as being played between Francesc
de Castellví and Narcís Vinyoles in Valencia in 1475 in
what may be the first recorded game of modern chess,
and being mentioned by Lucena in 1497. It is one of the
oldest asymmetric defenses to 1.e4, along with the French
Defence.
19th and early 20th centuries
Analysis by Scandinavian masters, including Ludvig Col-
lijn, in the late 19th century showed it is playable for
Black; Collijn also played the line with success. Al-
though the Center Counter Defense has never enjoyed
widespread popularity among top-flight chess players,
Joseph Henry Blackburne and Jacques Mieses often
played it, and greatly developed its theory in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. It was an occasional choice in
this era for top players such as Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch,
Rudolph Spielmann, and Dr. Savielly Tartakower.[1]
pion Emanuel Lasker at St. Petersburg 1914, and future
World Champion José Raúl Capablanca won twice with
it at New York 1915.[2][3]
Modern era
A regular user from the 1950s onwards was Yugoslav
IM Nikola Karaklajic, but a lengthy period of non-
support by top players ended by the 1960s, when for-
mer World Championship finalist David Bronstein and
Women’s World Champion Nona Gaprindashvili played
5.20. SCANDINAVIAN DEFENSE 127

it occasionally. Danish Grandmaster Bent Larsen, a four- sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but it can
time World Championship Candidate, played it occasion- be difficult to prove this over the board.
ally from the 1960s onwards; he defeated World Cham-
pion Anatoly Karpov with it at Montreal 1979, spurring
a rise in popularity. The popular name also began to 3...Qd8 The retreat with 3...Qd8 was depicted in
switch from “Center Counter Defense” to “Scandinavian Castellvi–Vinyoles, and may be the oldest of all Scan-
Defense” around this time. Danish Grandmaster Curt dinavian lines. Prior to the 20th century, it was of-
Hansen is also considered an expert in the opening.[4] ten considered the main line, and was characterized as
Australian Grandmaster Ian Rogers has adopted it fre- “best” by Howard Staunton in his Chess-Player’s Hand-
quently starting in the 1980s. In 1995, the Scandina- book,[8] but was gradually superseded by 3...Qa5. In the
vian Defense made its first appearance in a World Chess 1960s, 3...Qd8 experienced something of a revival after
Championship match, in the 14th game of the PCA final the move was played in a game by Bronstein against GM
at New York City. Viswanathan Anand as Black obtained Andrija Fuderer in 1959, though Bronstein ultimately lost
the game.[9] Bronstein’s game featured the older line 4.d4
an excellent position using the opening against Garry Kas-
parov, although Kasparov won the game.[5] Nf6, while other grandmasters, including Karl Robatsch,
explored fianchetto systems with 4.d4 g6 and a later Ng8–
During the sixth round of the 2014 Chess Olympiad at h6.
Tromso, Magnus Carlsen chose the Scandinavian against
Fabiano Caruana, and won the game; Carlsen used the However, the line’s reputation suffered after a string
variation again to draw with Caruana at the 2016 Chess of defeats, including two well-known miniatures won
Olympiad at Baku.[6] by Bobby Fischer against Robatsch in the 1962 Chess
Olympiad (later published in My 60 Memorable Games)
The opening is classified under code B01 in the and William Addison in 1970. The variation with 4...g6
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO). “has been under a cloud ever since [Fischer’s] crushing
win”,[10] but the 3...Qd8 variation as a whole remains
playable, though it is now considered somewhat passive.
5.20.2 Main line: 2.exd5
White normally continues 2.exd5 when Black has two 3...Qd6 The move 3...Qd6 offers another way to play
major continuations: 2...Qxd5 and 2...Nf6 (Marshall against 3.Nc3, and it has been growing in popularity in
Gambit). The rare move 2...c6 was played successfully by recent years. At first sight the move may look dubious,
Joseph Blackburne on at least one occasion, but is thoughtexposing the queen to a later Nb5 or Bf4, and for many
to be unsound (after 3.dxc6), and is almost never seen in years it was poorly regarded for this reason. However,
master-level play.[7] numerous grandmaster games have since shown 3...Qd6
to be quite playable, and it has been played many times
2...Qxd5 in high-level chess since the mid-1990s. White players
against this line have found an effective setup with d4,
3.Nc3 After 2...Qxd5, the most commonly played move Nf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0, and a future Ne5 with a strong, active
is 3.Nc3 because it attacks the queen with gain of tempo. position. The variation was covered thoroughly in a 2002
Against 3.Nc3, Black has a few choices. book by Michael Melts.

3...Qa5 This is considered the “classical” line, and is Other 3rd moves for Black 3...Qe5+?! (the Patzer
currently the most popular option. White can choose Variation) is regarded as bad for Black; for example af-
from multiple set-ups. A common line is 4.d4 c6 (or ter 4.Be2 c6 5.Nf3 Qc7 6.d4 White has a handy lead in
4...e5) 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 (6...Bg4 is a different op- development.
tion) 7.Bd2 e6. White has a few options, such as the ag- Likewise the rare 3...Qe6+?! is regarded as inferior. One
gressive 8.Qe2, or the quiet 8.0-0. Black’s pawn struc- idea is that after the natural interposition 4.Be2, Black
ture (pawns on e6 and c6) resemble a Caro-Kann De- plays 4...Qg6 attacking the g2 pawn. However, White
fence structure, therefore many Caro–Kann players wish- will usually sacrifice this pawn by 5.Nf3 Qxg2 6.Rg1 Qh3
ing to expand their repertoire have adopted this form of 7.d4 with a massive lead in development. David Letter-
the Scandinavian. man played this line as Black in a televised game against
[11]
Another set-up after 3...Qa5 is to target the b7 pawn by Garry Kasparov, and was checkmated in 23 moves.
fianchettoing the bishop on the h1–a8 diagonal, instead of
placing it on the a2–g8 diagonal, by 4.g3 Nf6 5.Bg2 c6 3.d4 Alternatives to 3.Nc3 include 3.d4, which can
6.Nf3 followed by 0-0, Rb1, and then exploiting the b7 transpose into a variation of the Nimzowitsch Defense af-
pawn by b4–b5. ter 3...Nc6 (1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5), or Black can
A more speculative approach against 3...Qa5 is the gambit play 3...e5, as well. After 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 0-0-0
4.b4?! If Black plays correctly, White should not have Black has better development to compensate for White’s
128 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

center after a future c4. Black may also respond to 3.d4 Variation. In this line, Black gives up the d-pawn in
with 3...e5. After the usual 4.dxe5, Black most often order to achieve rapid development and piece activity;
plays the pawn sacrifice 4...Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6. After the resulting play is often similar to the Icelandic Gam-
White defends the pawn, Black follows up with ...Bg4+ bit. The normal continuation is 4.f3 Bf5 5.Bb5+ Nbd7
and 0-0-0, e.g. 6.Bb5 Bg4+ 7.f3 0-0-0+ and Black has 6.c4. Occasionally seen is 3...g6, the Richter Variation,
enough compensation for the pawn, because he is better which was played on occasion by IM Kurt Richter in the
developed and White’s king is stuck in the center. Less 1930s.[20]
popular is 4...Qxe5, since the queen has moved twice in Another common response is 3.c4, with which White at-
the opening and is in the center of the board, where White
tempts to retain the extra pawn, at the cost of the inactiv-
can attack it with gain of time (Nf3). However, grand- ity of the light-square bishop. Now Black can play 3...c6,
masters such as Tiviakov have shown that it is not so easy
the Scandinavian Gambit,[21] which is the most com-
to exploit the centralized queen. mon move. The line 4.dxc6? Nxc6, described by Emms
as “a miserly pawn grab”,[22] gives Black too much cen-
tral control and development. Furthermore, after 4. dxc6
3.Nf3 Another common response after 2...Qxd5 is the
Black can play 4. ... e5, the Ross Gambit,[23] which af-
noncommittal 3.Nf3. After 3...Bg4 4.Be2 Nc6, White
ter 5. cxb7 Bxb7 resembles a reversed Danish Gambit.
can transpose to main lines with 5.d4, but has other op-
Most common after 3...c6 is 4.d4 cxd5, transposing to
tions, such as 5.0-0.
the Panov–Botvinnik Attack of the Caro-Kann Defence.
3...e6!? is the sharp Icelandic Gambit or Palme Gam-
2...Nf6 bit, invented by Icelandic masters who looked for an al-
ternative to the more common 3...c6. Black sacrifices a
The other main branch of the Scandinavian Defense is pawn to achieve rapid development. The most critical
2...Nf6. The idea is to delay capturing the d5 pawn for line in this double-edged variation is thought to be 4.dxe6
another move, avoiding the loss of time that Black incurs Bxe6 5.Nf3.[24]
in the ...Qxd5 lines after 3.Nc3. Now White has several A third major alternative is 3.Bb5+. The most popular re-
possibilities: ply is 3...Bd7, though the rarer 3...Nbd7 is gaining more
The Modern Variation is 3.d4. Grandmaster John attention recently. After 3.Bb5+ Bd7, White has several
Emms calls this the main line of the 2...Nf6 variations, options. The most obvious is 4.Bxd7+, after which White
saying that “3.d4 is the common choice for White...and can play to keep the extra pawn with 4...Qxd7 5.c4. The
it is easy to see why it is so popular.”[12] The idea behind historical main line is 4.Bc4, which can lead to very sharp
the Modern Variation is to give back the pawn in order to play after 4...Bg4 5.f3 Bf5 6.Nc3, or 4...b5 5.Bb3 a5. Fi-
achieve quick development. 3...Nxd5 is the most obvious nally, 4.Be2 has recently become more popular, attempt-
reply, although 3...Qxd5 is sometimes seen. Black wins ing to exploit the misplaced Bishop on d7 after 4...Nxd5.
back the pawn, but White can gain some time by attack- White’s 3.Nf3 is a flexible move that, depending on
ing the Knight. White usually responds 4.c4, when the Black’s reply, can transpose into lines with ...Nxd5 or
knight must move. The most common responses are: a) ...Qxd5.
4...Nb6, named by Ron Harman and IM Shaun Taulbut
White’s 3.Nc3 transposes into a line of Alekhine’s De-
as the most active option,;[13] b) 4...Nf6, which Emms
fence, normally seen after 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5, and
calls “slightly unusual, but certainly possible.”[14] Inter-
generally thought to be equal.[25] After 3...Nxd5 4.Bc4,
estingly, GM Savielly Tartakower, an aficionado of un-
the most common reply is 4...Nb6, although 4...Nxc3,
usual openings, discussing Black’s options, stated “the
4...c6, and 4...e6 are also viable continuations.
soundest is 4...Nf6.”[15] This is sometimes called the
Marshall Retreat Variation; c) the tricky Kiel Vari-
ation (4...Nb4?!), described by Harman and Taulbut as
“a speculative try”.[16] Black is hoping for 5.Qa4+ N8c6 5.20.3 Alternatives to 2.exd5
6.d5? b5! with a good game. However, White gets a
large advantage after 5.a3 N4c6 6.d5 Ne5 7.Nf3 (or 7.f4 There are several ways for White to avoid the main lines
Ng6 8.Bd3 e5 9.Qe2) or 5.Qa4+ N8c6 6.a3!, so the Kiel of the Scandinavian Defense. One option is to defer or
Variation is seldom seen in practice.[17] White may also avoid the exchange of e-pawn for d-pawn. This is most
play 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.c4. Now 5...Nb6 6.c5!? is a sharp line; often done by 2.Nc3, which transposes into the Dunst
Black should respond 6...N6d7!, rather than 6...Nd5? Opening after 2...d4 or 2...dxe4.
7.Qb3, when Black resigned after 7...b6? 8.Ne5! in If instead 2.e5?! is played, Black can play 2...c5, de-
Timman–Bakkali, Nice Olympiad 1974, and 7...Bxf3 velop the Queen’s bishop, and play ...e7-e6, reaching a
8.Qxb7! Ne3 9.Qxf3 Nc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Qxa8 also favorable French Defense setup, since here unlike in the
wins for White.[18][19] standard French Black’s light-squared bishop is not shut
An important and recently popular alternative to 3...Nxd5 in on c8. This line can also be compared to the Caro–
is 3...Bg4!?, the sharp Portuguese Variation or Jadoul Kann variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5!?; since in this
5.21. NIMZOWITSCH DEFENCE 129

Scandinavian line Black has played c5 in one rather than [14] Emms, p. 111.
two moves, he has a comfortable position.[26] However,
this line often leads away from open positions towards [15] “500 Master Games of Chess”, by Savielly Tartakower
blocked center positions, likely not Black’s original in- and Julius du Mont, G. Bell & Sons, London, 1952, p.
413
tent.
White can also gambit the e-pawn, most frequently by [16] Harman and Taulbut, p. 125
2.d4, transposing into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
Other gambits such as 2.Nf3?! (the Tennison Gambit) [17] Grefe and Silman, pp. 73–74.
are seldom seen. [18] Plaskett, p. 119.
In general, none of these sidelines are believed to of-
fer White more than equality, and the overwhelming [19] Grefe and Silman, p. 78.
majority of masters opt for 2.exd5 when facing the
[20] Harman and Taulbut, p. 119.
Scandinavian.[26][27]
The Scandinavian is thus arguably Black’s most “forcing” [21] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=7&n=866&
defense to 1.e4, restricting White to a relatively small ms=e4.d5.exd5.Nf6.c4.c6&ns=3.20.27.45.729.866
number of options. This has helped to make the Scan-
[22] Emms, p. 155.
dinavian Defense fairly popular among club-level players,
though it remains relatively rare at the Grandmaster level. [23] http://faithsaves.net/scandinavian-marshall-ross-gambit/

[24] Emms, p. 174.

5.20.4 See also
[25] Emms, p. 129.
• List of chess openings
[26] Emms, p. 88
• List of chess openings named after places
[27] “Chessgames.com Chess Opening Explorer (statistics af-
ter 1.e4 d5)".
5.20.5 References
[1] chessgames.com, game collection file for ECO Code B01 5.20.6 Further reading
[2] Plaskett, James (2004). The Scandinavian Defence. Lon-
don: Batsford. pp. 118–21. ISBN 0-7134-8911-1.
• Melts, Michael (2002). Scandinavian Defense: The
Dynamic 3...Qd6. Russell Enterprises. ISBN 978-
[3] Grefe, John and Silman, Jeremy (1983). Center Counter. 1-888690-11-8.
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania: Chess Enterprises, Inc. p. 72.
ISBN 0-931462-22-3. • Bauer, Christian (2010). Play the Scandinavian.
Quality Chess. ISBN 978-1-906552-55-8.
[4] “Curt Hansen”. ChessBase GmbH. Retrieved 15 Decem-
ber 2013.

[5] Kasparov–Anand 1995 5.20.7 External links

[6] http://www.chessgames.com, Caruana vs Carlsen game • Overview of the opening
files

[7] Harman, Ron & Taulbut, Shaun (1993). Winning with the
• Opening Report: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 (27531
Scandinavian. New York: Henry Holt. p. 28. ISBN 0- games)
8050-2935-4.

[8] Staunton, Howard (1864). “The chess-player’s hand-

book: A popular and scientific introduction to the game 5.21 Nimzowitsch Defence
of chess”. London: Henry G. Bohn: 377.
This article is about the opening moves 1.e4 Nc6. For
[9] Harman and Taulbut, p.68
the more common 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4, see
[10] Emms, John (2004). The Scandinavian, 2nd ed. London: Nimzo-Indian Defence.
Everyman Chess. p. 97. ISBN 1-85744-375-6.

[11] “Garry Kasparov vs David Letterman (1990)". The Nimzowitsch Defence is a somewhat unusual chess
opening characterised by the moves:
[12] Emms, p. 110.

[13] Harman and Taulbut, p. 127 1. e4 Nc6

130 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

This opening is an example of a hypermodern opening
where Black invites White to occupy the centre of the
board at an early stage with pawns. Black’s intent is to
block or otherwise restrain White’s central pawns and, if
allowed to do so by inaccurate play by White, eventually
undermine the White pawn centre by well-timed pawn
advances of his own or by attacking the White pieces de-
fending the centre. World Champion Garry Kasparov and
Grandmaster Raymond Keene wrote that it “has never
been fully accepted as a dependable opening. Neverthe-
less it is sound and offers the maverick spirit a great deal
of foreign territory to explore.”[1]
The Nimzowitsch is included under code B00 (“uncom-
mon king’s pawn opening”) in the Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings.
5.21.1 Main variations
• 2.d4 d5. The line that Aron Nimzowitsch, the origi-
nator of the opening, usually preferred. Now White
can choose among (1) 3.e5, which Black usually
meets with 3...Bf5, (although 3...f6 is also a decent,
though more complex, variation) followed by play- 5.21.2 See also
ing ...e6 (which no longer locks in the light-squared
Bishop) and later attacking White’s central pawn
chain with moves such as ...f6 and ...c5; (2) 3.exd5
Qxd5, followed by either 4.Nf3, seeking to gain time
by attacking the queen with Nc3, but enabling Black
to put pressure on White’s centre with 4....Bg4 or 5.21.3 References
4....e5, or else 4.Nc3 Qxd4 5.Qe2, a risky gambit
that can be dangerous to unprepared defenders; and [1] Garry Kasparov and Raymond Keene, Batsford Chess
(3) 3.Nc3 dxe4 (3...e6 leads to a type of French De-
fence) 4.d5 Ne5, when White usually continues with
5.Qd4 or 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3.
• 2.d4 e5. A solid line favored by the late British
Grandmaster Tony Miles. White can transpose to
the Scotch Game with 3.Nf3, or play 3.d5 Nce7
(3...Nb8, although perhaps not as bad as it looks, is
considered inferior), which gives White only a slight
plus score in practice. Another approach is 3.dxe5
Nxe5, when White can seek a quiet positional ad-
vantage with 4.Nf3 or play the more aggressive (but
potentially weakening) thrust 4.f4.
International Master Doug Root, and more recently
by the Finnish International Master Olli Salmensuu
and others. It may lead to wild complications, e.g.
3.exf5 d5 4.Nh4!? e5!? 5. Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Nf6!
7.g7+ Nxh5 8.gxh8(Q) Qxh4 9.Qxh7 Nd4, when
White is a whole rook up, but Black has a huge
lead in development and White’s king is in jeop-
ardy. Naiditsch-Doettling, Dortmund 2000, ended
in a draw after further complications: 10.Qg6+ Kd8
11.d3 Nf4! 12.Qf7 Bb4+ 13.c3 Bg4! 14.Qg8+ Kd7
15.Qg7+ Kc6 16.g3 Nf3+ 17.Kd1 Nd4+ 18.Kd2
Nf3+ 19.Kd1 Nd4+ 1/2-1/2. The British Interna-
tional Master Gary Lane advocates the more solid
4.d4 Bxf5 5.Bb5 (trying to control the weakened
e5 square) Qd6 6.Ne5 Nf6 7.0-0 Nd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6
9.Qf3! Nxe5 (or 9...e6 10.g4 Bg6 11.Nxg6 hxg6
12.Bf4 Qb4 13.Qd3) 10.Qxf5 Nf7 11.Bf4 Qd7
12.Qxd7+ Kxd7 13.Nd2 when Black’s inferior pawn
structure gave White a small advantage in Shaw
versus Salmensuu, European Team Championship,
León 2001 (1-0, 63).[4]
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
Openings 2, Collier Books, 1989, p. 228. ISBN 0-02-
033991-7.
[2] The American International Master Jeremy Silman writes
that “most players (even at the grandmaster level) avoid
any pre-studied lines by the opponent by simply replying
with 2.Nf3”. Jeremy Silman, The Reassess Your Chess
Workbook: How to Master Chess Imbalances, Siles Press,
2001, p. 383. ISBN 1-890085-05-7.
[3] For example, this was used by Magnus Carlsen against Bill
Gates in a televised match on January 22, 2014
[4] Shaw vs. Salmensuu

• 2.Nf3, shown by some databases to be the most 5.21.4 External links

common move, is often played by White players
not eager for a theoretical battle on their opponents’ • “The Nimzowitsch Defence (1 e4 Nc6) by Edward
turf.[2] 2...e5, transposing to a double king-pawn Winter” (Chess Notes Feature Article)
opening[3] may be the best move, but is unlikely to
appeal to the hard-core Nimzowitsch player. Other
moves, including 2...d6, 2...e6, 2...Nf6, 2...d5,
and 2...g6 are playable but tend to lead to infe-
5.22 Alekhine’s Defence
rior variations of the Pirc Defense, French De-
fence, Alekhine’s Defence, Scandinavian Defense, Alekhine’s Defence is a hypermodern chess opening that
or Robatsch Defense, respectively. The sharp 2...f5, can begin with the moves:
the Colorado Gambit, although somewhat dubious,
was played with some success by the American 1. e4 Nf6
5.22. ALEKHINE’S DEFENCE
Black tempts White’s pawns forward to form a broad
pawn centre, with plans to undermine and attack the
white structure later in the spirit of hypermodern defence.
White’s imposing mass of pawns in the centre often in-
cludes pawns on c4, d4, e5, and f4. Grandmaster Nick
de Firmian observes of Alekhine’s Defence in MCO-15
(2008), “The game immediately loses any sense of sym-
metry or balance, which makes the opening a good choice
for aggressive fighting players.”[1]
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has four
codes for Alekhine’s Defence, B02 through B05:
• B02: 1.e4 Nf6
• B03: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 (including the Ex-
change Variation and Four Pawns Attack)
• B04: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 (Modern with ...Bg4 eventually being played. The Four Pawns
Variation without 4...Bg4)
• B05: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 (Mod- fixed. Black has a number of options. Black can play
ern Variation with 4...Bg4)
5.22.1 History
The opening is named after Alexander Alekhine, who in- 5.dxc5?? Qa5+), and 3.d4 d6 4.Bc4, the Balogh Varia-
troduced it in the 1921 Budapest tournament in games tion.
against Endre Steiner[2] and Fritz Sämisch.[3] Four years
later, the editors of the Fourth Edition of Modern Chess
Openings (MCO-4) wrote:
Nothing is more indicative of the icon-
oclastic conceptions of the 'hypermodern
school' than the bizarre defence introduced by
Alekhine ... . Although opposing to all tenets
of the classical school, Black allows his King’s
Knight to be driven about the board in the early
stages of the game, in the expectation of pro-
voking a weakness in White’s centre pawns.[4]
In addition to Alekhine, another early exponent of the
defence was Ernst Grünfeld.
5.22.2 Use
The popularity of Alekhine’s Defence waxes and wanes;
currently it is not very common. De Firmian observes,
“The fashion could quickly change if some champion
of the opening takes up the cause, as the results Black
has obtained in practice are good.”[1] The opening’s
current highest-rated proponent is Grandmaster Vassily
Ivanchuk, although Lev Alburt played it at grandmas-
ter level almost exclusively during his career and was
responsible for many contributions in both theory and
practice. De Firmian writes, “Currently Grandmasters
Shabalov and Minasian use the opening with regularity,
131
while Aronian, Adams, and Nakamura will use it on oc-
casion. In the past, great players such as Fischer and
Korchnoi included the defence in their repertoire, lead-
ing to its respectable reputation.”[1]
5.22.3 Variations
After the usual 2. e5 Nd5, three main variations of
Alekhine’s Defence use 3.d4, but there are other options
for White at this point. Two of the most common ver-
sions are the Exchange Variation and the Four Pawns At-
tack. The Exchange Variation continues 3.d4 d6 4.c4
Nb6 5.exd6. White has some space advantage. Black
can capitalise on the half-open centre with ...g6, ...Bg7
Attack continues 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4. White has a
somewhat larger space advantage though the centre is not
...Qd7 with ...0-0-0 and ...f6 putting pressure on White’s
d pawn. Black can play ...Nb4 with ...c5 hoping to ex-
change the d pawn. Finally, Black can play ...Be7 with
...0-0 and ...f6 attacking the centre. Minor variations in-
clude O'Sullivan’s Gambit, 3.d4 b5 (intending 4.Bxb5 c5
Four Pawns Attack: 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4
Four Pawns Attack 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4
The Four Pawns Attack is White’s most ambitious try,
and the variation which perhaps illustrates the basic idea
of the defence best: Black allows White to make several
tempo-gaining attacks on the knight and to erect an appar-
ently imposing pawn centre in the belief that it can later
be destroyed. The game can become very sharp since
White must either secure his advantage in space or make
use of it before Black succeeds in making a successful
strike at it. Black must also play vigorously because pas-
sive play will be crushed by the White centre. The Four
Pawns Attack is not particularly popular because many
White players are wary of entering a sharp tactical line
which Black may have prepared. The main line contin-
ues 5...dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Be3 Bf5 8.Nc3 e6 9.Nf3
An alternative is the sharp Planinc Variation, 5...g5!?.
Black hopes for 6. fxg5? dxe5, wrecking White’s cen-
tre and leaving him with weak pawns. The line is named
after grandmaster Albin Planinc, who championed it in
the 1970s. It was then taken up in the 1990s by corre-
spondence player Michael Schirmer, whose games were
noted in a recent book on Alekhine’s Defence by notable
British GM and Alekhine exponent Nigel Davies.
132
Exchange Variation: 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6
Exchange Variation 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6
The Modern Variation is the most common variation
of the Alekhine Defence. As in the Exchange Varia-
The Exchange Variation is less ambitious than the Four tion, White accepts a more modest spatial advantage, and
Pawns Attack. White trades pawns, accepting a more hopes to be able to hang on to it. There are a number of
modest spatial advantage. Black’s main decision is possible Black responses:
whether to recapture with the solid 5...exd6, which will
lead to a fairly strategic position, or the more ambitious
5...cxd6 when Black has a preponderance of pawns in the
centre. The third recapture 5...Qxd6 is also possible since
the fork 6.c5 can be answered by 6...Qe6+, but the line is
considered inferior since Black will sooner or later need
to deal with this threat.[5]
In the sharper 5...cxd6 line, Black usually aims to attack
and undermine the white pawn on d4, and possibly c4
as well. To do this, a usual plan involves a fianchetto
of the king bishop to g7, playing the other bishop to g4
to remove a knight on f3 which is a key defender of d4,
while black knights on b6 and c6 bear down on the white
pawns on c4 and d4. Cox gave the game Jainy Gomes vs.
Guillermo Soppe to illustrate Black’s intentions.
A popular setup from White to prevent Black’s plan is
the Voronezh Variation (named after the Russian city
Voronezh, where the line was invented, by players such
as Grigory Sanakoev). The Voronezh is defined by the
opening sequence 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6
5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Rc1 0-0 9.b3. White’s
setup delays kingside development so that Black has trou-
ble developing pieces in a fashion that harasses White’s
pieces and assails the centre pawns; for instance there is
no knight on f3 which can become a target after ...Bg4,
and no bishop on d3 which may be a target after ...Nc6–
e5. While 9...Nc6?! is Black’s most common reply ac-
cording to ChessBase’s database, after 10.d5 Ne5 Black’s
knight lacks a target, and will soon be chased out with f2–
f4, and this line has scored very poorly for Black.[5] The
main line in the Voronezh, and the second most common
reply, is 9...e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8 Rxd8 12.c5 N6d7
(This retreat is forced since 12...Nd5?? loses the knight
due to the 13.Rd1 pin) when Black must play carefully to
unentangle and challenge the White pawn on c5. Other
lines against the Voronezh include 9...f5 leading to sharp
play. Other solid moves such as 9...e6, ...Bd7, ...Bf5, and
...a5 are possible as well. According to John Cox, the
9...e5 line is adequate, but Black needs to know the line
well.[5]
The Voronezh was recommended by John Emms and
noted as a big problem by Nigel Davies,[6] leading many
players to opt for the more solid 5...exd6 line. However,
the line offers Black less opportunity for counterplay. In
this line Black usually develops the king bishop via ...Be7
and ...Bf6, because Bg5 can be bothersome against a fi-
anchetto setup with ...g6 and ...Bg7, e.g. 6.Nc3 g6 7.Nf3
Bg7 8.Bg5.[5]
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
Modern Variation: 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3
Modern Variation 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3
• 4...Bg4, pinning the knight is the most common
response, which White usually parries with 5.Be2.
Black will often voluntarily surrender the bishop
pair by ...Bxf3 because the white knight is a fairly
strong piece, and capturing it undermines the white
centre pawns. Champions of this line include Lev
Alburt, Vlatko Kovačević and the late Vladimir
Bagirov.
• 4...g6, preparing to fianchetto a bishop to oppose
White’s central pawn mass, is also often seen. This
variation was played in the thirteenth game of the
Match of the Century between Boris Spassky and
Bobby Fischer. (The nineteenth game of the same
match featured the more common 4...Bg4.) Alburt
has also played this line frequently.[7] White usually
replies with 5.Bc4, the Keres Variation.
• 4...dxe5 (the Larsen Variation) is another possibil-
ity which can lead to the sharp sacrificial line 5.Nxe5
Nd7 6.Nxf7!? Kxf7 7.Qh5+ Ke6. The sacrifice is,
at the very least, good enough to draw after 8.Qg4+;
Larsen tried the suicidal 8...Kd6? against Fischer
during the Santa Monica Blitz tournament in 1966,
and lost quickly after 9.c4.[8] Black should there-
fore acquiesce to the perpetual check with 8...Kf7
9.Qh5+ Ke6 etc. Instead, 8.c4 can be played if
White is aiming to win.[5] White can also simply re-
treat the knight with 5.Nf3. If Black does not want
to allow the sacrifice, other options after 5.Nxe5 are
5...g6 (the Kengis Variation) and 5...c6 (the Miles
Variation). The idea behind both moves is to chal-
lenge the e5 knight with Nd7 only after the sacri-
fice on f7 has become unsound. The Kengis varia-
tion looks more natural but white has several sharp
ideas such as 6.c4 and the wild 6.Qf3!?. Therefore,
5...c6 has become more common; despite the pas-
sive look this waiting move discourages white most
ambitious continuations. Now 6.c4 can be met with
the very interesting 6...Nb4!? while 6.Bc4 can ei-
ther transpose to quieter lines of the Kengis or give
rise to independent variations in which black avoids
the king’s bishop fianchetto. White’s most popu-
lar move is 6.Be2 (6.Bd3!?) when black continues
with either the immediate Nd7 of 6...Bf5. Against
the latter an aggressive possibility (introduced by
Kasparov against Short and then improved by Ju-
dith Polgar) is 7.g4!?.[5] In top level chess, the line
5.22. ALEKHINE’S DEFENCE
with 5...c6 has largely displaced 4...Bg4 as the main Two Knights Variation: 3.Nc3
line.[9]
Two Knights Variation 3.Nc3
• 4...c6 is passive but solid, creating a position which
is difficult to attack.
In most variations, Black can play ...Bg4 to transpose into rapid piece development. Although the line after 4...d6,
the 4...Bg4 line.
Balogh Variation: 3.d4 d6 4.Bc4
Balogh Variation 3.d4 d6 4.Bc4
The first recorded use of this variation was on August 13,
1929, in Carlsbad, Bohemia. Esteban Canal was white If Black does not want to defend against White’s attack-
and Edgard Colle was black. White resigned after Black’s ing opportunities against 3...Nxc3 4.dxc3, then 3...e6 is
40th move.[10]
Unlike several other sidelines, 4. Bc4 is fairly popular.
The line contains some traps that can snare the unwary.
For example, 4...dxe5 5.dxe5 Nb6?? loses the queen to
6.Bxf7+!. Instead, the main line is 4...Nb6 5.Bb3, when
Black has usually played 5...dxe5 6.Qh5 e6 7.dxe5 (the
“old main line” according to Cox) or 5...Bf5 when White
can among other things try the obstructive pawn sacrifice
6.e6. In either case, White obtains attacking chances, and
so Taylor recommends 5...d5 followed by 6...e6 to reach
a position akin to the French Defence.[11]
Two Pawns Attack: 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5
Two Pawns Attack 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5
The Two Pawns Attack (also known as the Lasker At-
tack or the Chase Variation[12][13] ) is also an ambitious
try. White may gain attacking prospects, but it might cost
a pawn to do so.[14] White’s pawns on c5 and e5 secure a
spatial advantage, but the d5 square has been weakened.
Unlike the Four Pawns Attack, the White centre is not as
fluid and the game takes on a more strategic character.
Aesthetically, 4.c5 looks positionally suspect, since
White’s pawn advances have severely weakened the d5-
square.[15] White’s intention is to grab space and mobil-
ity so that those strategic deficiencies are of little conse-
quence.
Black must play 4...Nd5, whereupon White will usually
challenge the knight with moves like Bc4 and Nc3. Black
can defend the knight with ...c6 or ...e6, sometimes play-
ing both. Typically, Black then challenges White’s pawns
on e5 and c5 with moves like ...d6 and ...b6.
The statistics presented by Cox show this variation scor-
ing poorly for White, with all of Black’s main defences
scoring at least 50%.[5]
133
The Two Knights Variation is a variation where White
immediately accepts doubled pawns after 3...Nxc3 for
some compensation. After 4.dxc3 this compensation is
challenging the e-pawn often can lead to fairly dull posi-
tions, the position remains open and Black can quickly
succumb with poor defence, for example after 5.Bc4
dxe5?? 6.Bxf7+!, White wins the queen on d8. After
4.bxc3 White’s compensation for the doubled pawns is a
big centre that can be used as a basis for a kingside attack.
The resulting pawn structure leads to position similar to
that of the Winawer variation of the French Defence.[5]
a reasonable alternative that was Alekhine’s choice when
meeting the Two Knights, and this defence has been ad-
vocated by Taylor.[16] If White plays 4.d4, then 4...Nxc3
forces White into the bxc3 line reminiscent of the French.
If 4.Nxd5 exd5, Black will quickly dissolve the doubled
pawns with ...d6, and the resulting position will tend to
be drawish.
Minor sidelines after 2.e5 Nd5
In Endre Steiner-Alexander Alekhine, Budapest 1921,
the first high level game with the Alekhine Defence,
White played 3.d4 d6 4.Bg5. Cox recommends 4...h6
5.Bh4 dxe5 6.dxe5 Bf5, followed by ...Nc6 and ...Ndb4,
targeting c2.
4.Bg5 from Steiner-Alekhine
Another rare line, but one that scores well in practice is
3.d4 d6 4.Be2, preventing Black from playing 4...Bg4
while retaining the option of making the pawn advance
f2-f4.[5]
3.c4 Nb6 4.a4
After 3.c4 Nb6 4.a4, White aims at chasing the Black
knight away followed by a pawn sacrifice that impairs
Black’s development, for example by 4...d6 5.a5 Nd7
6.e6. It is possible for Black to allow this, but it is simpler
to prevent it by 4...a5. White’s main continuation is to
deploy the queenside rook for duties on the kingside with
5.Ra3, followed by Rg3 at some point when the attack
on g7 is supposed to tie Black down from developing the
bishop to e7. However, after 5...d6 6.exd6 exd6 7.Rg3
Bf5, Black can carry through with 8...Be7 anyway, since
after 9.Rxg7 the rook would be trapped and lost to 9...Bg6
and 10...Bf6.[5] The idea for this unusual early “rook
lift” probably originated with the well-known American
International Master Emory Tate.[17][18] Women’s World
134
Champion Grandmaster Maria Muzychuk, World Junior
Champion GM Lu Shanglei and GM Nazar Firman have
experimented with this line and achieved some success
with it.[19]
Alternatives to 2...Nd5
After 2.e5, the 2...Nd5 is almost universally played. The
two other knight moves that do not hang it to the queen
on d1 are 2...Ng8 and 2...Ne4.
• 2...Ng8, undeveloping the knight immediately, was
named the “Brooklyn Defence” in honour of his
hometown by Grandmaster Joel Benjamin, who
calls this his “pet line”.[20] Although Black might
be said to be giving odds of three moves, White
only has a small advantage according to theory.[21]
The first recorded use of the Brooklyn Variation was
in 1905 in Vienna where Aron Nimzowitsch with
White checkmated Adolf Albin on the 34th move.
• Very dubious is 2...Ne4?, which John L. Watson and
Eric Schiller dub the “Mokele Mbembe”. They an-
alyze 3.d4 f6 4.Bd3 d5 5.f3 Ng5 6.Bxg5 fxg5 7.f4!
g6! 8.Nf3! g4 (they also analyze 8...gxf4 9.Ng5! e6
10.Qg4! Qe7 11.0-0 and 8...Bg4 9.h3, both leading
a large advantage for White) 9.Ng5 Bh6 10.Nxh7
Rxh7 11.Bxg6+ Rf7 12.Qd3 Bf8 13.f5 e6 14.f6
Qd7 15.h3! g3 16.Qxg3, with a winning advan-
tage for White.[22] Nunn’s Chess Openings concludes
that White gets a large advantage with 3.d4 f6 (or
3...e6 4.Nh3 h6 5.Qg4 d5 6.f3 h5 7.Qf4 g5 8.Nxg5
Nxg5 9.Qxg5 Be7 10.Qg7) 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qh4 d5
6.Bd3.[23]
Alternatives to 2.e5
Instead of chasing Black’s knight, White may defend the
e4-pawn, either directly or through tactical means.
• 2.Nc3 is by far White’s most common alternative to
2.e5; in fact Cox noted that he saw this move in over
half his games with the Alekhine. It is often played
by amateurs and those wishing to avoid a theoretical
battle on territory more familiar to their opponents.
Cox, however, wrote that many White players are 5.22.4 See also
bluffing, and in fact know nothing about either the
Vienna Game or the Four Knights Game, to which
the game can easily transpose if Black plays 2...e5,
citing one book which recommended 2.Nc3 while
[5]
assuring readers that 2...e5 is uncommon. Another
transposition Black may enter is 2...d6, which usu-
5.22.5 References
ally leads to the Pirc Defence. But the independent
Alekhine line is 2...d5, known as the Scandinavian [1] Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings, Fifteenth Edi-
Variation. After 2...d5, 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 Nb6 or
...Nxc3 is considered roughly equal, while 4...e6 is
solid but blocks in the light-squared bishop. 3.exd5 [2] Endre Steiner vs Alexander Alekhine at ChessGames.com
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
Nxd5 4.g3 has been played by the Danish correspon-
dence player Ove Ekebjaerg, when Harald Keilhack
recommends 4...Nxc3 5.bxc3 Qd5! 6.Qf3! (6.Nf3
Qe4+ is awkward in light of 7.Be2 Bh3 or 7.Qe2
Qxc2) Qe6+! 7.Qe2 (“on 7.Be2 or 7.Ne2, 7...Bd7
is unpleasant”) Qxe2+ 8.Nxe2 Bd7! 9.Bg2 Bc6
10.0-0 Bxg2 11.Kxg2 Nc6 12.d3 g6 13.Rb1 0-0-0
14.c4 Bg7, when “Black has a rather comfortable
position”, as in Ekebjaerg–Alcantara Soares, corr.
1989.[24] More combative is 2...d5 3.e5, when Black
can choose among 3...d4, 3...Nfd7 (transposing to
the Steinitz variation of the French Defence after
4.d4 e6, but 4.e6!? is a sharp alternative), 3...Ne4!?,
and even 3...Ng8. While most grandmasters play the
mainline 2.e5, Jonny Hector regularly plays 2.Nc3
against the Alekhine, and has scored well against the
2...d5 variation. His ideas have left White with a
theoretical edge. Textbook authors of the Alekhine
Defence, including Davies, Cox, and Taylor, have
therefore encouraged 2...e5 over 2...d5.
• 2.d3 (the Maroczy Variation) is less common.
Although playable, 2.d3 blocks in White’s light-
squared bishop, so the variation is considered some-
what passive. If White fianchettoes that bishop,
transposition to a King’s Indian Attack is likely.
Lev Alburt and Eric Schiller call 2.d3 “insipid” and
recommend 2...d5 (or 3.Nd2 e5 with a reversed
Philidor’s Defence) 3.e5 Nfd7 4.f4 (4.d4 c5 5.c3
Nc6 leaves Black a tempo up on the French De-
fence) c5 5.Nf3 e6 6.g3!? Nc6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 b5
with equality.[25]
• 2.Bc4 is rarely seen, since it allows Black to gain
the bishop pair and seize space in the center. Alburt
and Schiller write that after 2...Nxe4 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7
4.Qh5+ Kg8 or 4...g6 5.Qd5+ e6 6.Qxe4 Bg7 7.Qf4
Ke8! “Black has nothing to worry about.”[26] If
Black does not want his king chased about, playable
alternatives are 2...e5 (transposing to the Bishop’s
Opening), 2...d5 and 2...e6.
• 2.f3 is also rare, but players who like to play the
Black side of the Latvian Gambit can in effect wind
up playing it after 1.e4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.f4!?.[27]
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
tion, 2008, p. 159. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7.
5.23. MODERN DEFENSE
[3] Friedrich Samisch vs Alexander Alekhine
ChessGames.com
[4] R.C. Griffith and M.E. Goldstein, Modern Chess Openings,
Fourth Edition, 1925, p. 1.
[5] John Cox (2005). Starting out: Alekhine’s Defence. Ev-
eryman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-370-7.
[6] Davies, Nigel (2002). Alekhine’s Defence. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-253-3.
[7] Burgess, Chapter 9, Alburt Variation.
[8] Fischer-Larsen Santa Monica blitz, 1966
[9] Bogdanov, Valentin. Play the Alekhine. Gambit. ISBN
1-906454-15-9.
[10] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1036753
[11] Taylor, chapter 8 “Fourth or fifth move sidelines”
[12] Burgess, Graham, The Complete Alekhine, 1992 B.T.
Batsford Ltd., p.45. ISBN 0-8050-2425-5
[13] Taylor, Chapter 7, The Chase Variation - Back to the Cen-
tre
[14] DeFirmian, Nick and Walter Korn, Modern Chess Open-
ings, 1990 M-Mate Chess. ISBN 0-8129-1730-8. Re-
ferred to as the Two Pawns Attack in lines 28-30.
[15] Taylor, Page 182.
[16] Taylor, chapter 9 “Third Move Sidelines”
[17] http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview5/
tatevariation(selected).htm
[18] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1341122
[19] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=8&n=4869&
ms=e4.Nf6.e5.Nd5.c4.Nb6.a4&ns=3.11.42.76.754.894.
4869
[20] Joel Benjamin, American Grandmaster: Four Decades of
Chess Adventures, Gloucester Publishers, 2007, p. 167.
ISBN 978-1-85744-552-7.
[21] Most opening treatises do not mention this line. Accord- B09 are assigned to the Pirc. The tenth edition of Modern
ing to Nunn’s Chess Openings, White gets a slight advan- Chess Openings (1965) grouped the Pirc and Robatsch to-
tage after 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3. John Nunn, Graham gether as the “Pirc–Robatsch Defense”.
Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gallagher, Nunn’s Chess
Openings, Everyman Publishers, 1999, p. 129 n. 30.
ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
[22] John Watson and Eric Schiller, The Big Book of Busts, Hy-
permodern Press, 1995, pp. 120–21. ISBN 1-886040-13-
3.
[23] John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gal-
lagher, Nunn’s Chess Openings, Everyman Publishers,
1999, p. 129 n. 30. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
[24] Harald Keilhack, “Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3”, Schachver-
lag Kania, 2005, pp. 239–40. ISBN 3-931192-29-6.
135
at [25] Lev Alburt and Eric Schiller, The Alekhine for the Tour-
nament Player, American Chess Promotions, 1985, pp.
130–31. ISBN 0-7134-1596-7.
[26] Alburt and Schiller 1985, p. 131.
[27] Taylor, chapter 10 Alekhine Declined
5.22.6 Further reading
• Bogdanov, Valentin (2009). Play the Alekhine.
Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-906454-15-9.
• Burgess, Graham (1992). The Complete Alekhine.
B. T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-8050-2425-5.
• Davies, Nigel (2001). Alekhine’s Defence. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 1-85744-253-9.
• Lakdawala, Cyrus (2014). The Alekhine Defence,
move by move. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-
78194-166-9.
• Taylor, Timothy (2010). Alekhine Alert!. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-623-4.
5.23 Modern Defense
The Modern Defense (also known as the Robatsch De-
fence after Karl Robatsch) is a hypermodern chess open-
ing in which Black allows White to occupy the center with
pawns on d4 and e4, then proceeds to attack and under-
mine this “ideal” center without attempting to occupy it
themselves. The opening has been most notably used by
British grandmasters Nigel Davies and Colin McNab.
The Modern Defense is closely related to the Pirc De-
fence, the primary difference being that in the Mod-
ern, Black delays developing his knight to f6. (The
delay of ...Nf6 attacking White’s pawn on e4 gives
White the option of blunting the g7-bishop with c2–c3.)
Transpositional possibilities between the two openings
are rife.
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) classifies
the Modern Defense as code B06, while codes B07 to
5.23.1 Main lines
A typical move order for the Modern Defense is 1. e4 g6
2. d4 Bg7, with main lines:
• 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 c6 5. Nf3 Bg4 (ECO code B06);
• 3. c4 (ECO code A40) d6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Be3
e5 6. d5 Nce7 (7.g4 will be answered by 7...f5
8.gxf5 gxf5 9.Qh5+ Ng6 10.exf5 Qh4 11.Qxh4
Nxh4 12.Nb5 Kd8).
136
5.23.2 2.Nf3
...c5 to Sicilian, ...Bg7
5.23.3 2.c4
...Bg7
5.23.4 2.Nc3
...c5 to Sicilian, ...Bg7
5.23.5 Fischer’s suggestion: 3. h4!?
Bobby Fischer suggested the move 3.h4!? as an unortho-
dox try against 1...g6 2.d4 Bg7, in his annotation to a
game against Pal Benko.[1] (Fischer played 3.Nc3 in the
actual game.) The idea is to prise open Black’s kingside
by h4–h5 followed by hxg6 (...gxh5 would greatly weaken
the cover to Black’s king).
5.23.6 Unusual White responses
The flexibility and toughness of the Modern Defense has
provoked some very aggressive responses by White, in-
cluding the attack crudely named the Monkey’s Bum, a
typical sequence being 1.e4 g6 2.Bc4 Bg7 3.Qf3. (A
more refined version is the Monkey’s Bum Deferred, 5.23.9 References
where White plays Bc4 and Qf3 only after developing
their queen’s knight.) [1] Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games, 2008, p. 286
Other unusual openings can be reached after 1.e4 g6. The [2] Kavalek vs. Suttles, Nice Olympiad 1974 at chess-
Hippopotamus Defence is one such system. Another is
the Norwegian Defence (also known as the North Sea
Defence) which begins 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.e5 Nh5. (If
5.23.10 Further reading
White plays 4.g4, Black retreats the knight with 4...Ng7.
On 4.Be2, Black can retreat the knight or gambit a pawn
with 4...d6!? If White plays 3.Nc3 instead of 3.e5, Black
can transpose to the Pirc Defence with 3...d6 or continue
in unconventional fashion with 3...d5!?)
5.23.7 Averbakh System
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3
The Modern Defense, Averbakh System (ECO code A42)
can be reached by the lines:
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4
Possible moves for Black at this point include 4...Nf6,
4...Nc6, 4...e5, and 4...Nd7. The move 4...Nf6 leads to a
position of the King’s Indian Defence, where White can
play moves such as 5.Nf3, 5.f3, 5.Be2, 5.f4, and so on.
CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
5.23.8 Kavalek vs. Suttles
In the following game played at the Nice Olympiad in
1974, Canadian Grandmaster Duncan Suttles, one of the
Modern’s leading exponents, defeats Czech-American
Grandmaster Lubomir Kavalek:
1. e4 g6 2. d4 d6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Be2 Nf6
5. Nc3 (Pirc Defence by transposition) 5... a6
6. a4 0-0 7. 0-0 b6 8. Re1 Bb7 9. Bc4
e6 10. Bf4 Nbd7 11. Qd2 b5! (initiating a
deep combination; Suttles later remarked that
Kavalek has occupied the center and developed
his pieces in the manner advocated by Fred Re-
infeld, yet now stands worse) 12. axb5 axb5
13. Rxa8 Qxa8 14. Bxb5 Bxe4 15. Nxe4
Nxe4 16. Rxe4 Qxe4 17. Bxd7 Ra8 18. h4
Qb7! (despite his material advantage, White is
in trouble; note that his bishop on d7 is nearly
trapped) 19. d5 e5 20. Bh6 Qxb2 21. h5
Ra1+ 22. Kh2 Qb1 23. Bxg7 Qh1+ 24. Kg3
Kxg7 25. Bh3 Qc1 26. h6+ Kf6 27. c4 Qxd2
28. Nxd2 Kg5 29. Ne4+ Kxh6 30. Bd7 f5
31. Nf6 Ra7 32. Bb5 g5 33. Ng8+ Kg7 34.
Ne7 Kf6 35. Nc6 Ra3+ 36. Kh2 h5 37. Nb8
h4 38. Na6 g4 39. Nxc7 Ra2 40. Kg1 g3 41.
fxg3 hxg3 42. Kf1 e4 0–1[2]
games.com
• Davies, Nigel (2008). Starting Out: The Modern.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781857445664.
5.24 Monkey’s Bum
The Monkey’s Bum is a variation of the Modern De-
fense, a chess opening. Although it may also be loosely
defined as any approach against the Modern Defense in-
volving an early Bc4 and Qf3, threatening "Scholar’s
mate", it is strictly defined by the sequence of moves:
1. e4 g6
2. Bc4 Bg7
3. Qf3 e6
4. d4 Bxd4
5. Ne2 Bg7
6. Nbc3
5.25. OWEN’S DEFENCE 137

The Monkey’s Bum Deferred is a more respected varia- from the Monkey’s Bum proper in that the attempt to cre-
tion in which White develops his queen’s knight before ate the “Scholar’s mate” threat with Bc4 and Qf3 only oc-
playing Bc4 and Qf3. curs after White has developed his queen’s knight. A typ-
ical sequence of the Monkey’s Bum Deferred is 1.e4 g6
2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4 d6 5.Qf3 (see diagram). Usu-
5.24.1 Origin ally White will castle kingside and undertake an attack by
means of the pawn thrust f2–f4.
The Monkey’s Bum was discovered and championed by The following spectacular game is probably the most fa-
IM Nigel Povah in the 1970s during a wave of popular- mous success of the Monkey’s Bum Deferred and forced
ity for the Modern Defence. In 1972, after Keene and it to be considered with respect by the chess world:
Botterill published their book The Modern Defence, Po-
vah began looking for a response to the opening. He hap- Polgar–Shirov, Donner Memorial, Amster-
pened across the game Ljubojević–Keene, Palma de Mal- dam, 1995
lorca 1971, which started 1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.f4 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4 d6 5.Qf3
Nf6 and eventually ended in a draw. Intrigued by Ljubo- e6 6.Nge2 b5 7.Bb3 a5 8.a3 Ba6 9.d5 cxd5
jević's early Bc4, Povah began investigating a rapid as- 10.exd5 e5 11.Ne4 Qc7 12.c4 bxc4 13.Ba4+
sault on f7 with 3.Qf3. When he showed the first few Nd7 14.N2c3 Ke7 15.Nxd6 Qxd6 16.Ne4
moves to Ken Coates, a friend at Leeds, Coates declared, Qxd5 17.Bg5+ Ndf6 18.Rd1 Qb7 19.Rd7+
“If that works then I'm a monkey’s bum!" The name Qxd7 20.Bxd7 h6 21.Qd1 1–0
stuck. The Monkey’s Bum first appeared in print five
years later in the British Chess Magazine. Povah wrote
an article on the theory of the Monkey’s Bum, in which 5.24.4 See also
he stated that although he had never yet lost with the vari-
ation, it was still “in its infancy”. • List of chess openings

5.24.2 Analysis 5.24.5 References

• Povah, Nigel (August 1977). “Monkey Business
In playing the Monkey’s Bum, White’s idea is to gain
with 2♗c4 against the Modern Defence”. British
active piece play by a sacrifice of the d4-pawn, much
Chess Magazine. 97 (8): 350–53.
like the Smith-Morra Gambit. In practice however,
such compensation proves tenuous in the Monkey’s Bum
proper, as evidenced by the following game: 5.24.6 External links

N. Povah–S. Kagan, Birmingham 1977 • British Championships 2000

1.e4 g6 2.Bc4 Bg7 3.Qf3 e6 4.d4 Bxd4 5.Ne2
Bg7 6.Nbc3 Nc6 7.Bf4 Ne5 8.Bxe5 Bxe5
9.Qe3 d6 10.0–0–0 Bd7 11.f4 Bg7 12.g4 a6 5.25 Owen’s Defence
13.h4 b5 14.Bb3 a5 15.a4 bxa4 16.Nxa4 h5
17.e5 Nh6 18.exd6 Nxg4 19.Qc5 c6 20.Nd4 Owen’s Defence (also known as the Queen’s Fianchetto
Bxd4 21.Rxd4 0–0 22.Nb6 Rb8 23.Nxd7 Defence[1] or Greek Defense[2] ) is an uncommon chess
Qxd7 24.Ba4 Qb7 25.b3 Qb6 26.Qxb6 Rxb6 opening defined by the moves:
27.Rc4 Rd8 28.Bxc6 Rxd6 29.Bf3 Ne3
30.Ra4 Rb4 31.Rxa5 Rxf4 32.Bb7 Rb6
1. e4 b6
33.Ba8 Nf5 34.Kb2 Nxh4 35.Ka3 Nf5 36.c4
Nd4 37.Rb1 Nc2+ 38.Ka2 Nb4+ 39.Kb2 Rb8
40.c5 Nd3+ 0–1 By playing 1...b6, Black prepares to fianchetto the queen’s
bishop where it will participate in the battle for the centre.
The downside of this plan is that White can occupy the
centre with pawns and gain a spatial advantage. More-
5.24.3 Monkey’s Bum Deferred over, 1...b6 does not prepare kingside castling as 1...g6
does, and it is harder for Black to augment his pressure
After 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4 d6 5.Qf3 against the centre with ...f5, which weakens the king-
side, than it is to play the corresponding move ...c5 af-
A much more popular and respected approach against ter 1...g6.[3] Owen’s Defence accordingly has a dubi-
the Modern Defense is the Monkey’s Bum Deferred. It ous reputation.[4][5][6] The move ...b6 has been played
has been employed by such notable grandmasters as John on the first or second move by Grandmasters Jonathan
Nunn, Sergei Rublevsky and Judit Polgár. It is distinct Speelman, Pavel Blatny, Tony Miles, Edvins Kengis, and
138 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

Normunds Miezis, and International Masters Bricard and 5.25.3 Illustrative game
Filipovic. [7]
Speelman vs. Basman, 1984
Instead of fianchettoing, Black can also play his bishop to
Final position
the a6–f1 diagonal (the Guatemala Defence).
Owen’s Defence is classified as code B00 by the
Speelman–Basman, British Championship 1984:
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.
1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 b6 3. d4 Bb7 Transposing to a
position more commonly reached by 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7
5.25.1 History 3.Nc3 e6. 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Nge2 c5 6. d5! a6
6...exd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Bxd5 9.Nf4 Bc6 (9...Be6?
[13]
The opening is named after the English vicar and strong 10.Be4 wins; 9...Qe7+!?) 10.Bc4! “gives White
[14]
19th-century amateur chess player John Owen, an early strong pressure”. 7. a4 exd5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. Nxd5
[1]
exponent. Howard Staunton wrote in 1847 that 1.e4 b6, Bxd5 10. Nf4 Be6 11. Be4 Ra7 12. 0-0 Be7 Watson
“which the Italians call 'Il Fianchetto di Donna,' although and Schiller also give 12...g6 13.a5! as favoring White
disapproved of by the earlier writers, may be made by after 13...bxa5 14.Bd2 or 13...b5 14.Be3 d6 15.b4 Be7
the second player without harm, if followed speedily by 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Qg4 Qc8 18.bxc5 dxc5 19.Bh6, in-
[...e6] and [...c5].”[8] tending Rad1, Rfe1, and h4–h5 “with great pressure for
just a pawn”.[15] 13. Ra3 0-0 14. Rg3 f5 15. Bd5
Using his opening, Owen defeated Paul Morphy in an in- Rf6? Better is 15...Bxd5!? 16.Qxd5+ Rf7 17.Nh5 with
formal game in London, 1858.[9] An additional game in a strong attack.[13] 16. Re1 Bxd5 17. Qxd5+ Rf7 18.
the match featuring this opening, where Owen varied on Nh5 g6 19. Bh6 Nc6 20. Rge3 1–0[16] (see diagram)
move 5, was won by Morphy.[10] White threatens 21.Nf6+! Bxf6 (21...Kh8 22.Qxf7)
22.Re8+. On 20...gxh5, 21.Rg3+ wins; 20...Bf8 21.Re8
gxh5 23.Bxf8!; 20...Ra8 21.Rxe7! Nxe7 and now ei-
5.25.2 Theory ther 22.Rxe7 Qxe7 23.Qxa8+ or 22.Nf6+ Kh8 23.Qxf7
wins.[13]
The theory of Owen’s Defence is less developed than that
of other openings. This makes it attractive to some play-
ers, since their opponents will often be ill-prepared for it 5.25.4 Matovinsky Gambit
and hence forced to think for themselves.[3] GM Christian
Bauer observes:[11] A pitfall for Black in this opening, the Matovinsky Gam-
bit,[17] dates from a game by the 17th-century Italian
To be honest, I don't think Black can chess player and writer Gioachino Greco.
equalise as quickly with 1...b6 as he sometimes
Greco–NN, 1619: 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 f5? Bauer
does in standard openings, and he may suf-
calls this move “simply suicidal”.[18] Black gravely weak-
fer against a well-prepared opponent. Then
ens his kingside in an attempt to gain material, but White
again, the well-prepared opponent is rare for
can win by falling into Black’s “trap”. Normal is 3...e6 or
such marginal variations as 1...b6, and in any
3...Nf6.[19] Also possible is 3...g6 ("!" – Andrew Martin)
case, with reasonable play I'm sure White can't
heading for a Hippopotamus Defense, when Martin con-
get more than a slight advantage from the open-
siders 4.f4 f5! (as in Serpik–Blatny, U.S. Open 2003)[20]
ing – a risk everyone is running as Black, aren't
strong for Black.[21] 4. exf5! Bxg2 5. Qh5+ g6 6. fxg6
they?
(see diagram) Nf6?? 7. gxh7+ Nxh5 8. Bg6# 1–0[22]

According to MCO-15, after 2.d4 Bb7 White gets the Greco vs. NN, 1619
advantage with either: Position after 6.fxg6

• 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nf6 (5...cxd4 A better try for Black is 6...Bg7! Staunton wrote in
6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qe2 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.0- 1847 that White got the advantage with 7.gxh7+ Kf8
0!? Bxc3 11.bxc3 Nxc3 12.Qe3 Nc6 13.Bb2 Ne4 8.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 9.Qg4 Bxh1 10.h4 e6 11.h5.[8] Over
120 years later, Black improved on this analysis with both
14.Ba3 and White had a large advantage in Adams–
Vanderwaeren, Moscow Olympiad 1994) 6. Nbd2 10...Qf8 ("!" – Soltis) 11.h5 Qf6 12.h6 Rxh6 13.Bxh6
Nc6 7. a3! d5 8. e5 Nfd7 9. b4 Be7 10. 0-0 0-0Qxh6 Hendler–Radchenko, Kiev 1970 and 10...Bd5 ("!"
11. Re1 “with a clear plus”, or – Kapitaniak) 11.h5 Be6 12.Qg2 Rxh5 Schmit–Vitolins,
Latvia 1969, winning quickly in both games.[23][24] How-
• 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 Bb4 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. Bg5 h6 7. ever, White is winning after 7.Qf5! (instead of 7.gxh7+)
Bxf6 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Qxf6 9. 0-0 d6 10. Nd2 e5 Nf6 8.Bh6!! Bxh6 (on 8...Kf8, White wins with 9.Bxg7+
11. f4 Qe7 12. Qg4, as in David–Bauer, France Kxg7 10.gxh7 Bxh1 11.Qg6+ Kf8 12.Qh6+ Kf7 trans-
2005.[12] posing to line b below,[18] or 9.Qg5 Bxh1 10.gxh7[25] )
5.25. OWEN’S DEFENCE 139

9.gxh7 and now (a) 9...Kf8 10.Qg6 Bc1 11.Qxg2 Bxb2 5.25.7 References
12.Ne2 “and Rg1 will prove lethal”[18] or (b) 9...Bxh1
10.Qg6+ Kf8 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Nh3 with a winning [1] David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Compan-
attack.[12][18][25] Den Broeder–Wegener, correspondence ion to Chess (2nd ed. 1992), p. 286. ISBN 0-19-866164-
1982, concluded 12...Qf8 13.Bg6+ Ke6 14.Qf4 d5 9.
[26]
15.Bf5+ Kf7 16.Ng5+ Ke8 17.Qxc7 1–0. [2] ECO codes with names by Bill Wall.
According to both Soltis and Kapitaniak, 7.gxh7+
[3] Christian Bauer, Play 1...b6, Everyman Chess, 2005, p.
Kf8 8.Nf3! (which Soltis attributes to F. A. Spin-
5. ISBN 1-85744-410-8.
hoven of the Netherlands) is also strong: (a) 8...Bxf3?
9.Qxf3+ Nf6 10.Qxa8; (b) 8...Bxh1 9.Ne5 Bxe5 (9...Qe8 [4] Owen’s Defence “enjoyed a brief revival at the hands of
10.Ng6+) 10.dxe5 Bd5 11.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 12.Qg6+ American IM Regan and Yugoslav GM Sahović. Unfor-
Kf8 13.Bh6+; (c) 8...Nf6 9.Qg6 Bxh1 10.Bh6 Rxh7 tunately, the attention it received unearthed more accu-
(10...Bxh6 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Ng5+) 11.Ng5 Bxh6 rate lines for White and it is currently considered insuf-
12.Nxh7+ Nxh7 13.Qxh6+; or (d) 8...Nf6 9.Qg6 Bxf3 ficient.” Garry Kasparov and Raymond Keene, Batsford
10.Rg1 Rxh7 11.Qg3!! Be4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Qf3+ Chess Openings 2, Collier Books, 1989, p. 228. ISBN
Kg8 14.Qxe4 Nc6 (14...d5 15.Qe6+ Kh8 16.Nc3) 15.Bf4 0-02-033991-7.
[27][28]
with an extra pawn for White. Boris Avrukh also [5] Owen’s Defence is “viewed by theory as unreliable”. Nick
recommends this line, and notes that 13...Nf6 (instead de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition, Ran-
of 13...Kg8) 14.Qxa8 Rxh2 15.Bf4 Rh4 16.Qg2 Rg4 dom House Puzzles & Games, 2008, p. 385. ISBN 978-
17.Qh2 leaves White “an exchange up with an easily win- 0-8129-3682-7.
ning position”.[29] Watson writes that although 7.Qf5!
is the “traditional” refutation and does indeed win, “the [6] “Owen’s Defence ... is regarded by current theory as sus-
picious”. Bauer 2005, p. 7.
analysis is complicated”, and Spinhoven’s 8.Nf3! “is
[30]
clearer”. [7] Bauer 2005, p. 6.

[8] Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook, Henry

G. Bohn, 1847, p. 379.
5.25.5 Guatemala Defense
[9] Paul Morphy vs John Owen, London m2 1858 Chess-
Games.com. Retrieved on 2011-08-29.
The Guatemala Defence (1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ba6). Black’s
bishop occupies the diagonal a6–f1. Although the [10] Paul Morphy vs John Owen, London m2 1858 Chess-
Guatemala does not evince high opening ambition, Games.com. Retrieved on 2013-12-12.
neither does it lose material.
[11] Bauer 2005, p. 7.

Instead of fianchettoing, Black can proceed differently [12] de Firmian 2008, p. 385.
by playing his queen’s bishop to a6, the Guatemala De-
fense,[31] so-named because the Guatemala Chess Club [13] Speelman’s annotations in Chess Informant, Volume 38,
Šahovski Informator, 1985, p. 74.
used the line in a 1949 correspondence game.[32] Andrew
Soltis writes that it has “no other discernible benefit than [14] Watson & Schiller 1995, p. 111.
to get out of 'book' as quickly as possible”.[32] Joel Ben-
jamin and Eric Schiller see some logic in Black’s concept [15] Watson & Schiller 1995, p. 114.
to exchange the white bishop as soon as possible, as it of-
[16] Speelman–Basman, British Championship 1984. Chess-
ten proves troublesome for Black in many openings.[33]
Games.com. Retrieved on 2009-07-15.
White gets the advantage with 2.d4 Ba6 3.Bxa6 Nxa6
4.Nf3 Qc8!? 5.0-0 Qb7 6.Re1 e6 7.c4.[34] [17] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1243022
The Guatemalan bishop deployment can also occur on
Black’s third move, from various transpositions. For ex- [18] Bauer 2005, p. 25.
ample after 1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 b6, or 1.d4 b6
2.e4 e6, Black can follow up in all cases with 3...Ba6. [19] Bauer 2005, pp. 24–25.

[20] Serpik–Blatny, U.S. Open 2003. ChessGames.com. Re-

trieved on 2009-07-08.
5.25.6 See also [21] Andrew Martin, The Hippopotamus Rises: The Re-
Emergence of a Chess Opening, Batsford, 2005, p. 112.
• List of chess openings ISBN 978-0-7134-8989-7.

[22] Professor Hoffmann, The Chess Games of Greco, George

• List of chess openings named after people Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1900, p. 84.
140 CHAPTER 5. E4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

[23] Andrew Soltis, The Defense 1...P–QN3 (1977 Edition), attack from the flank, and to avoid theory. Michael Bas-
Chess Digest, 1977, p. 21. man has been known to play the St. George, as did Tony
Miles.
[24] T. Kapitaniak, b6!, The Chess Player, 1982, p. 44.
In perhaps its most famous appearance, Miles defeated
[25] John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gal- reigning World Champion Anatoly Karpov in the 1980
lagher, Nunn’s Chess Openings, Everyman Chess, 1999, p. European Team Championship in Skara, Sweden. The
123. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
opening also acquired the name of "Birmingham De-
[26] Den Broeder–Wegener, corr. 1982. ChessGames.com. fence” at this time, after Miles’ hometown.
Retrieved on 2009-07-02. Boris Spassky also played the St. George Defence, al-
[27] Soltis 1977, p. 22. beit by transposition, in the 22nd game of his 1966 world
championship match against World Champion Tigran
[28] Kapitaniak 1982, p. 45. Petrosian. That game began 1.d4 b5 (the Polish Defence)
2.e4 Bb7 3.f3 a6 (transposing to the St. George). This
[29] Boris Avrukh, 1.d4 Volume Two, Quality Chess, 2010, p.
was an inauspicious outing for the defence, however: Pet-
551. ISBN 978-1-906552-33-6.
rosian won, giving him the 12 points needed to retain his
[30] John Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4, title.
Gambit Publications, 2010, p. 96. ISBN 978-1-906454-
19-7.
5.26.2 Theory
[31] John Watson and Eric Schiller, The Big Book of Busts, Hy-
permodern Press, 1995, p. 111. ISBN 1-886040-13-3.
The St. George Defence is generally considered an infe-
[32] Andrew Soltis, “GM Follies”, Chess Life, August 1997, p. rior response to 1.e4 compared to 1...e5, 1...e6, 1...c5, or
12. 1...c6. The St. George Defence is considered more dubi-
ous than Owen’s Defence (1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7), since Black
[33] Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). “Guatemala De- spends three moves just to develop his queen bishop, as
fence”. Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publishing
opposed to two in Owen’s Defence, while White occupies
Company. pp. 117–18. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.
the centre and is ready to castle in three more moves.
[34] Watson and Schiller 1995, pp. 111–12. The major lines in the opening start with 1.e4 a6!? 2.d4
b5 and then branch. (White can also show the defence
respect by playing the strong if rarely played 1.e4 a6 2.c4
5.25.8 External links preventing Black’s 2...b5 or making it into a gambit.) The
main line continues 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.Bd3 e6 5.0-0 Nf6. An-
• Marcin Maciaga, Flexible System of Defensive Play
other important line is the Three Pawns Attack, some-
for Black – 1...b6
times called the St. George Gambit, which continues
3.c4 e6!? 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7. (Black can also play
3...Bb7 and offer the b-pawn for the more valuable white
5.26 St. George Defence e-pawn.) The St. George is also sometimes used to pre-
vent a white bishop from occupying b5 before continuing
The St. George Defence (also known as the Baker’s De- as in French Defence.
fence, Birmingham Defence, or Basman Counterat-
Much of the theoretical work on the defence was done by
tack ) is an unorthodox chess opening for Black. The
the English IM Michael Basman.
opening begins with the moves:

1. e4 a6!? 5.26.3 Illustrative game

The St. George Defence is given ECO code B00 as a
King’s Pawn Opening.
5.26.1 History
The first known chess game involving the St. George
was a simultaneous game between an English amateur,
J. Baker, and the first official World Chess Champion,
Wilhelm Steinitz, on 11 December 1868. The game was
won by Baker. The advocates of the opening are gen-
erally players willing to sacrifice the centre in order to
Anatoly Karpov–Tony Miles, European Team Champi-
onship, Skara 1980:[1][2]
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Qe2 e6 6.a4
c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Nbd2 b4 9.e5 Nd5 10.Ne4 Be7 11.0-
0 Nc6 12.Bd2 Qc7 13.c4 bxc3 14.Nxc3 Nxc3 15.Bxc3
Nb4 16.Bxb4 Bxb4 17.Rac1 Qb6 18.Be4 0-0!? 19.Ng5
(19.Bxh7+!? is a dangerous sacrifice) h6 20.Bh7+ Kh8
21.Bb1 Be7 22.Ne4 Rac8 23.Qd3 Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Qxb2
25.Re1 Qxe5 26.Qxd7 Bb4 27.Re3 Qd5 28.Qxd5 Bxd5
29.Nc3 Rc8 30.Ne2 g5 31.h4 Kg7 32.hxg5 hxg5 33.Bd3
a5 34.Rg3 Kf6 35.Rg4 Bd6 36.Kf1 Be5 37.Ke1 Rh8
38.f4 gxf4 39.Nxf4 Bc6 40.Ne2 Rh1+ 41.Kd2 Rh2
5.26. ST. GEORGE DEFENCE 141

42.g3 Bf3 43.Rg8 Rg2 44.Ke1 Bxe2 45.Bxe2 Rxg3

46.Ra8 Bc7 0–1

5.26.4 See also

• Hypermodernism (chess)

5.26.5 References
Notes

[1] Karpov–Miles game at ChessGames.com

[2] Karpov–Miles game commentary

Bibliography

• Michael Basman (1982). Play the St. George. Perg-

amon chess openings. ISBN 0-08-029718-8.
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
(Second ed.). Cardoza. p. 32. ISBN 1-58042-072-
9.

• Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). “St George”.

Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publishing Com-
pany. pp. 44–49. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.

5.26.6 External links

• Includes a fairly indepth analysis

• Chessdatabase
• article and game collection
Chapter 6

d4 Openings

6.1 Queen’s Pawn Game 6.1.1 History

In the most general sense the term Queen’s Pawn Game In the 19th century and early 20th century, 1.e4 was by
can refer to any chess opening which starts with the move far the most common opening move by White (Watson
1.d4. It is the second most popular opening move after 2006:87), while the different openings starting with 1.d4
1.e4. The name is usually used to describe openings be- were considered somewhat unusual and therefore classed
ginning with 1.d4 where White does not play the Queen’s together as “Queen’s Pawn Game”.
Gambit. The most common Queen’s Pawn Game open- As the merits of 1.d4 started to be explored, it was the
ings are: Queen’s Gambit which was played most often—more
popular than all other 1.d4 openings combined. The
• The London System, 2.Bf4 or 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4 term “Queen’s Pawn Game” was then narrowed down to
any opening with 1.d4 which was not a Queen’s Gambit.
• The Trompowsky Attack, 1...Nf6 2.Bg5 and the Eventually, through the efforts of the hypermodernists,
Pseudo-Trompowsky 1...d5 2.Bg5 the various Indian Defences (such as the King’s Indian,
Nimzo-Indian, and Queen’s Indian) became more popu-
• The Torre Attack, 2.Nf3 and 3.Bg5 lar, and as these openings were named, the term “Queen’s
Pawn Game” narrowed further.
• The Stonewall Attack, 2.e3

• The Colle System, 2.Nf3 and 3.e3, 6.1.2 Continuations

• The Kingside Fianchetto, 2.Nf3 and 3.g3 1...Nf6

• The Barry Attack, 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4
• The Richter-Veresov Attack, 1...d5 2.Nc3 Nf6
3.Bg5 or 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5
• The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit, 1...d5 2.e4, and the
Hübsch Gambit 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4
In the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO), strict
Queen’s Pawn Games (1.d4 d5) are classified in the cod-
ing series D00–D05. Other openings where Black does
not play 1...d5 are named Semi-Closed Games and clas-
sified as:
• Indian Defenses, where Black plays 1...Nf6 (ECO
coding series A45–A79, D70–D99, E00–E99); for
instance E12–E19 Queen’s Pawn: Indian; 1...d5
This move prevents White from establishing a full pawn
centre with 2.e4. The opening usually leads to a form
of Indian Defence, but can also lead to versions of the
Queen’s Gambit if Black plays ...d5 at some point. Since
1...Nf6 is a move that is likely to be made anyway, the
move is a flexible response to White’s first move. White
usually plays 2.c4. Then Black usually plays 2...e6 (typ-
ically leading to the Nimzo-Indian, Queen’s Indian, or
Queen’s Gambit Declined), 2...g6 (leading to the King’s
Indian or Grünfeld Defense), or 2...c5 (leading to the
Benoni Defense or Benko Gambit). Rarer tries include
2...e5 (Budapest Gambit) and 2...d6 (Old Indian De-
fense). Also White can play 2.Nf3 which like Black’s
move is not specific as to opening. A third alternative is
the Trompowsky Attack with 2.Bg5.

• other Queen’s Pawn Games, where Black plays nei- 1...d5 (Closed Game) also prevents White from play-
ther 1...d5 nor 1...Nf6; these include the Dutch De- ing 2.e4 unless White wants to venture the dubious
fence (ECO coding series A40–A44, A80–A99). Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. 1...d5 is not any worse than

142
6.2. CLOSED GAME 143

1...Nf6, but committing the pawn to d5 at once makes 6.1.3 Other continuations
it somewhat less flexible since Black can no longer play
the Indian Defenses, although if Black is aiming for • 1...b5 (Polish Defense)
Queen’s Gambit positions this may be of minor impor-
tance. Also, a move like 2.Bg5 (Hodgson Attack) is • 1...c5 (Old Benoni Defense)
considered relatively harmless compared to 1.d4 Nf6 • 1...e5 (Englund Gambit)
2.Bg5 since there is no knight on f6 for the bishop to
harass. White’s more common move is 2.c4 leading to
the Queen’s Gambit when Black usually chooses between 6.1.4 See also
2...e6 (Queen’s Gambit Declined), 2...c6 (Slav Defense)
or 2...dxc4 (Queen’s Gambit Accepted). Also White can • List of chess openings
play 2.Nf3 which again is not specific as to opening. Then
Black may play ...Nf6 (same as above) or ...e6. A Queen’s
Gambit may arise anyway if White plays c4 soon after- 6.1.5 References
ward, but lines like the Colle System and Stonewall At-
tack are also possible. • Watson, John (2006), Mastering the Chess Openings,
vol 1, Gambit, ISBN 978-1-904600-60-2

1...e6

This move allows White to play 2.e4, entering the French

6.2 Closed Game
Defense. If White wants to continue with a Queen’s Pawn
Game however, 2.c4 and 2.Nf3 usually transpose to a A Closed Game (or Double Queen’s Pawn Opening)
familiar opening such as the Queen’s Gambit Declined, is a chess opening that begins with the moves:
Nimzo-Indian or Queen’s Indian. A line that is unique to
the 1...e6 move order is the Kangaroo Defense, 1.d4 e6 1. d4 d5
2.c4 Bb4+.
The move 1.d4 offers the same benefits to develop-
ment and center control as does 1.e4, but unlike with
1...f5
the King Pawn openings where the e4 pawn is unde-
fended after the first move, the d4 pawn is protected
1...f5 is the Dutch Defence. Common White moves are
by White’s queen. This slight difference has a tremen-
2.g3, 2.Nf3, and 2.c4.
dous effect on the opening. For instance, whereas the
King’s Gambit is rarely played today at the highest levels
1...g6 of chess, the Queen’s Gambit remains popular at all levels
of play. Also, compared with the King Pawn openings,
1...g6 is sometimes called the Modern Defence line. transpositions between variations are more common and
White can play 2.e4 to enter the Modern Defense. More important in the closed games.
commonly, White plays 2.c4. Black may play 2...Nf6
for the King’s Indian Defence (same as 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4
6.2.1 Specific openings
g6). More commonly, Black plays 2...Bg7. Then White’s
moves include 3.Nc3, 3.e4, and 3.Nf3. 3.Nc3 often
White’s formation in the Colle system
leads to the Modern Defense, Averbakh System, and
3.e4 usually leads to the Modern Defense, Averbakh Sys-
tem. 2...d6 often leads to the Modern Defense, Averbakh The Richter-Veresov Attack, Colle System, Stonewall
System. Also, White can play 2.Nf3. Black may play Attack, Torre Attack, London System, and Blackmar-
2...Nf6 for the King’s Indian. More commonly, Black Diemer Gambit are classified as Queen’s Pawn Games
plays 2...Bg7. Common White moves are 3.e4, 3.c4, and because White plays d4 but not c4. The Richter-Veresov
3.g3. is rarely played at the top levels of chess. The Colle and
Stonewall are both Systems, rather than specific opening
variations. White develops aiming for a particular for-
1...d6 mation without great concern over how Black chooses to
defend. Both these systems are popular with club play-
This move also allows 2.e4 entering the Pirc Defense. If ers because they are easy to learn, but are rarely used by
White avoids this, 2.Nf3 or 2.c4 may lead to a King’s professionals because a well prepared opponent playing
Indian or Old Indian Defense, or Black may play 2...Bg4, Black can equalize fairly easily. The Blackmar-Diemer
sometimes called the Wade Defence (A41, see 1.d4 d6 Gambit is an attempt by White to open lines and obtain at-
2.Nf3 Bg4). tacking chances. Most professionals consider it too risky
144 CHAPTER 6. D4 OPENINGS

for serious games, but it is popular with amateurs and in • 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD)
blitz chess.
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 Baltic Defense
Queen’s Gambit after 2.c4
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 Marshall Defense
The most important closed openings are in the Queen’s • 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Stonewall Attack
Gambit family (White plays 2.c4). The Queen’s Gam-
bit is somewhat misnamed, since White can always re- • 1.d4 d5 2.e4 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
gain the offered pawn if desired. In the Queen’s Gambit
Accepted, Black plays ...dxc4, giving up the center for • 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Colle System
free development and the chance to try to give White an • 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 London System
isolated queen pawn with a subsequent ...c5 and ...cxd4.
White will get active pieces and possibilities for the at- • 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 f5
tack. Black has two popular ways to decline the pawn, the
Slav (2...c6) and the Queen’s Gambit Declined (2...e6).
Both of these moves lead to an immense forest of varia- 6.2.3 See also
tions that can require a great deal of opening study to play
well. Among the many possibilities in the Queen’s Gam- • Open Game (1.e4 e5)
bit Declined are the Orthodox Defense, Lasker Defense,
the Cambridge Springs Defense, the Tartakower Varia- • Semi-Open Game (1.e4 moves other than 1...e5)
tion, and the Tarrasch and Semi-Tarrasch Defenses. • Semi-Closed Game (1.d4 moves other than 1...d5)
Albin countergambit after 2...e5
• Flank opening (1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.f4, and others)

Black replies to the Queen’s Gambit other than 2...dxc4, • Irregular chess opening
2...c6, and 2...e6 are uncommon. The Chigorin Defense
(2...Nc6) is playable but rare. The Symmetrical Defense
(2...c5) is the most direct challenge to Queen’s Gambit 6.2.4 References
theory — Can Black equalize by simply copying White’s
moves? Most opening theoreticians believe not, and con- • De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings:
sequently the Symmetrical Defense is not popular. The MCO-14, Random House Puzzles & Games, ISBN
Baltic Defense (2...Bf5) takes the most direct solution to 0-8129-3084-3
solving the problem of Black’s queen bishop by develop-
ing it on the second move. Although it is not trusted by
most elite players, it has not been refuted and some very 6.3 Semi-Closed Game
strong grandmasters have played it. The Albin Coun-
tergambit (2...e5) is generally considered too risky for A Semi-Closed Game (or Semi-Closed Opening) is a
top-level tournament play. Similarly, the Marshall De- chess opening in which White plays 1.d4 but Black does
fense (2...Nf6) is very rarely seen in grandmaster play, not make the symmetrical reply 1...d5. (The openings
as most theoreticians consider it definitely inferior for starting 1.d4 d5 are the Closed Games.)
Black.

6.3.1 Important openings

6.2.2 List
Indian systems
• 1.d4 d5 Double Queen’s Pawn Opening or Closed Dutch Defense
Game Benoni Defense
• 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Richter-Veresov Attack
By far the most important category of the semi-closed
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Queen’s Gambit openings are the Indian systems, which begin 1.d4 Nf6.
As these defenses have much in common and have a
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 Queen’s Gambit Accepted (QGA)
great deal more theory than all the remaining semi-closed
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 Symmetrical Defense openings put together, they are treated in a separate arti-
cle; see Indian defense for details.
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 Slav Defense
The third most common response to 1.d4 (after 1...Nf6
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 Chigorin Defense and 1...d5) is 1...e6. This move is sometimes used by
players wishing to play the Dutch Defense (1.d4 f5) with-
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 Albin Countergambit out allowing White the option of 2.e4!?, the Staunton
6.3. SEMI-CLOSED GAME 145

Gambit. 1...e6 rarely has independent significance, usu- • 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ Keres Defence
ally transposing to another opening, e.g. the aforemen-
tioned Dutch Defense (2.c4 f5 or 2.Nf3 f5), French De- • 1.d4 Nf6 Indian Systems (this is an enormous cate-
fense (2.e4 d5), or Queen’s Gambit Declined (2.c4 d5). gory, treated separately)
Another possibility is 2.c4 Bb4+, the Keres Defence • 1.d4 f5 Dutch Defense
(also known as the Kangaroo Defence), which is fully
playable, but also little independent significance, since it
often transposes into the Dutch, Nimzo-Indian, or Bogo- 6.3.4 See also
Indian.
Other important responses to 1.d4 include the Dutch • Open Game (1.e4 e5)
(1...f5) and the Benoni Defense (1...c5). The Dutch, an • Semi-Open Game (1.e4 other)
aggressive defense adopted for a time by World Champi-
ons Alekhine and Botvinnik, and played by both Botvin- • Closed Game (1.d4 d5)
nik and challenger David Bronstein in their 1951 world
championship match, is still played occasionally at the • Flank opening (1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.f4, and others)
top level by Short and others. The Benoni Defense is also • Irregular chess opening
fairly common, and may become very wild if it develops
into the Modern Benoni, though other variations are more
solid. 6.3.5 References
1...d6 is reasonable, and may transpose to the King’s In-
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Ox-
dian Defense (e.g. after 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 d6),
ford Companion to Chess (2 ed.), Oxford University,
Grünfeld Defence (e.g. after 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3
ISBN 0-19-280049-3
d5), Old Indian Defense (e.g. after 2.Nf3 Nbd7 3.c4 e5
4.Nc3 Be7), Pirc Defense (2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6), or even • De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings:
Philidor’s Defense (e.g. 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5). MCO-14, Random House Puzzles & Games, ISBN
The Wade Defence, a slightly offbeat but fully playable 0-8129-3084-3
line, arises after 1...d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Note that the plausi-
ble 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5?! dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8 scores less than
50% for White.

6.3.2 Uncommon openings

Polish Defense

The remaining semi-closed openings are uncommon.

The Polish Defense has never been very popular but has
been tried by Spassky, Ljubojević, and Csom, among oth-
ers. The Queen’s Knight Defense is an uncommon open-
ing that often transposes to the Nimzowitsch Defence af-
ter 1.d4 Nc6 2.e4 or the Chigorin Defense after 2.c4 d5,
although it can lead to unique lines, for example after 1.d4
Nc6 2.d5 or 2.c4 e5. The Englund Gambit is a rare and
dubious sacrifice.

6.3.3 List
• 1.d4 b5 Polish Defense

• 1.d4 c5 Benoni Defense

• 1.d4 Nc6 Queen’s Knight Defense

• 1.d4 d6 Wade Defence

• 1.d4 e5 Englund Gambit

• 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 English Defense

Chapter 7

d4 Openings – Queen’s Gambit Openings

7.1 Queen’s Gambit sue development with 3...e5!) 4.a4 c6? 5.axb5 cxb5??
6.Qf3! winning a piece.
For the novel, see The Queen’s Gambit (novel). The Queen’s Gambit is divided into two major categories
based on Black’s response: The Queen’s Gambit Ac-
The Queen’s Gambit is a chess opening that starts with cepted (QGA) and the Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD).
the moves: In the QGA, Black plays 2...dxc4, temporarily giving up
the center to obtain freer development. In the QGD,
Black usually plays to hold d5. Frequently Black will be
1. d4 d5 cramped, but Black aims to exchange pieces and use the
2. c4 pawn breaks at c5 and e5 to free his game.

The Queen’s Gambit is one of the oldest known chess

openings. It was mentioned in the Göttingen manuscript
7.1.2 Main variations
of 1490 and was later analysed by masters such as
Gioachino Greco in the seventeenth century. In the eigh- After 1.d4 d5 2.c4:
teenth century it was recommended by Phillip Stamma,
and is sometimes known as the Aleppo Gambit in his • 2...dxc4 (Queen’s Gambit Accepted) (QGA)
honour. During the early period of modern chess, queen
pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen’s Gam- • 2...Nc6 (Chigorin Defense)
bit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in
Vienna. • 2...c5 (Symmetrical Defense)
As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and in- • 2...c6 (Slav Defense)
creased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen’s
Gambit grew more popular, reaching its zenith in the • 2...e5 (Albin Countergambit)
1920s and 1930s, and was played in all but two of 34
games in the 1927 world championship match between • 2...e6 (Queen’s Gambit Declined) (QGD)
José Raúl Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine.
After World War II, it was less frequently seen, as many • 2...Bf5!? (Baltic Defense)
Black players moved away from symmetrical openings,
tending to use the Indian Defences to combat queen pawn • 2...Nf6?! (Marshall Defense)
openings.
• 2...g6 (Alekhine’s Variation)
The Queen’s Gambit is still frequently played and it re-
mains an important part of many grandmasters’ opening
repertoires. Technically, any Black response other than 2...dxc4 (or
another line with an early ...dxc4 that transposes into the
QGA) is a Queen’s Gambit Declined, but the Slav, Chig-
7.1.1 Overview orin Defense, and Albin Counter Gambit are generally
treated separately. There are so many QGD lines af-
With 2.c4, White threatens to exchange a wing pawn (the ter 2...e6, that many of them are distinctive enough to
c-pawn) for a center pawn (Black’s d-pawn) and dominate warrant separate treatment. The Orthodox Defense and
the center with e2–e4. This is not a true gambit, as Black the Tarrasch Defense are two important examples. See
cannot hold the pawn, for example: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 Queen’s Gambit Declined for more.
3.e3 b5? (Black tries to guard his pawn but should pur- There are many other possible responses:

146
7.2. QUEEN’S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 147

• The Slav Defense is a solid response, although many 1. d4 d5

variations are very tactical. If Black plays both ...c6 2. c4 dxc4
and ...e6 (in either order), the opening takes charac-
teristics of both the Slav and the Orthodox Defense The Queen’s Gambit Accepted is the third most popular
and is classified as a Semi-Slav Defense. option on Black’s second move, after 2...e6 (the Queen’s
• The Chigorin Defense takes the game away from Gambit Declined) and 2...c6 (the Slav Defense). In both
the normal positional channels of the QGD, and has of these variations, slow and subtle manoeuvres are often
been favoured by Alexander Morozevich at top level; necessary to complete development. White will try to ex-
it appears to be playable for Black. ploit an advantage in space and development, while Black
will defend the position and aim for queenside counter-
• The Albin Countergambit is a sharp attempt for play.
Black to gain the initiative. It is not common in top-
The Queen’s Gambit is not considered a true gambit, in
level chess, but can be a dangerous weapon in club
contrast to the King’s Gambit, because the pawn is either
play.
regained, or can only be held unprofitably by Black. Black
• The Symmetrical Defense is very rarely played. Al- will allow the pawn to be recaptured, and use the time
though it has not been definitely refuted, play seems expended to play against White’s centre.
to favor White. As Black’s 2...dxc4 surrenders the centre, White will try
to seize space in the centre and use it to launch an attack
• If White chooses to fianchetto his king’s bishop, the
on Black’s position. Black’s game is not devoid of coun-
game transposes into the Catalan Opening.
terchances, however. If the white centre can be held at
• The Baltic Defense is offbeat but playable. bay, Black will try to weaken White’s centre pawns to gain
an advantage in the ensuing endgame by playing ...c5 and
• The Marshall Defense is the weakest of the Black ...cxd4 at some stage, and if White responds with exd4,
replies listed. Named after Frank Marshall, who was the result will be an isolated pawn on d4 – which can also
the first to devise the move, he briefly played it in the lead to a keen middlegame battle. If White recaptures
1920s before abandoning it. with a piece at d4 instead, the centre will be liquidated
and a fairly even game will usually ensue.
7.1.3 Further reading The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) classifies
the Queen’s Gambit Accepted under codes D20 to D29.
• Marović, Dražen (1992). Play the Queen’s Gambit.
Cadogan Books. ISBN 1-85744-016-1.
7.2.1 History
• Ward, Chris (2006). Play The Queen’s Gambit.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-411-6. While the Queen’s Gambit Accepted was mentioned in
literature as long ago as the 15th century, it was the World
• Schandorff, Lars (2009). Playing the Queen’s Gam- Chess Championship 1886 between Wilhelm Steinitz and
bit: A Grandmaster Guide. Quality Chess. ISBN Johannes Zukertort which introduced the first modern
978-1-906552-18-3. ideas in this opening. Black’s play had, until then, cen-
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau- tred on holding on to the c4-pawn. Steinitz’s plan was to
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 2: 1.d4 return the pawn, but inflict White with an isolated pawn
d5 / 1.d4 various / Queen’s Gambits. New In Chess. on d4, then play to exploit the weakness.
ISBN 978-90-5691-269-7. Even with the modern treatment, the opening suffered
from a slightly dubious reputation in the early 20th cen-
tury, even as Alexander Alekhine introduced further
7.1.4 External links ideas for Black and it was played at the highest levels,
beginning in the 1930s, though becoming less popular
• “Queen’s Gambit” video and explanation,
after World War II, as the Indian Defenses were heav-
TheChessWebsite.com
ily played. At the end of the 1990s, a number of players
• “Queen’s Gambit Accepted Traps” video and expla- among the world elite included the Queen’s Gambit Ac-
nation, Chessworld.net cepted in their repertoires, and the line is currently con-
sidered sound.[1]

7.2 Queen’s Gambit Accepted 7.2.2 Main variations

The Queen’s Gambit Accepted (or QGA) is a chess After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4, the most popular move is 3.Nf3,
opening characterised by the moves: but there are other moves which have been played by
148
strong grandmasters. The main variations below are in
order of popularity.
3.Nf3
The main lines of the QGA begin with this move. White
delays measures to regain the pawn for the moment and
prevents Black from striking at the centre with ...e5. The
recovery of the pawn will usually be done through 4.e3
and 5.Bxc4. Black’s most common rejoinder is 3...Nf6,
though the variation 3...a6 was introduced by Alexander
Alekhine and bears his name.
Main line after 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6
The main line of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted continues
with:
3... Nf6 4. e3
4.Qa4+ leads to the Mannheim Variation, so
named after its adoption in one of the cities
where the World Chess Championship 1934
was played, even though the move was previ-
ously known. Black usually gains easy equality
after 4...Nc6, so the line is fairly rare. Grand-
masters Michał Krasenkow and Ulf Andersson
have played the line several times.[2]
4.Nc3 leads to the Two Knights Variation,
which is a true gambit line since White can no
longer expect to regain the c4-pawn after 4...a6
5.e4 b5. White’s compensation in the form of
a strong centre leads to immensely complicated
play. Black does not need to enter this line, and
4...Nc6, 4...e6, and 4...c6 tend to transpose to
the Chigorin Defense, QGD Vienna Variation,
and Slav Defense respectively.[2]
4... e6
An alternative is 4...Bg4 5.Bxc4 e6, usually
leading to a solid position, though the game can
become sharp if White immediately attempts
to exploit the weakness of Black’s queenside in
the line 6.Qb3 Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nd7 as Black gains
great piece activity and spoils White’s kingside
pawns in return for sacrificing a pawn.[1]
5. Bxc4 c5 6. 0-0
A major alternative to castling is 6.Qe2, called
the Furman Variation after Semion Furman.
The idea behind 6.Qe2 is to support the ad-
vance of the e-pawn.[2]
6... a6
CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS
6...cxd4 brings about an isolated queen’s pawn
structure, and has been called the Steinitz Vari-
ation, after Wilhelm Steinitz. This line became
well known after his match with Zukertort in
1886, but theory has generally held White’s ac-
tivity in high regard. The early clarification of
the central tension gives White too free a hand
and the line is rarely seen in modern practice.[1]
Black has played to challenge the d4-pawn, and
prepare ...b5 which wins time by harassing the
bishop on c4. In the meantime, White has
safeguarded his king and regained the pawn.
At this point, there are several options avail-
able for White, who needs to consider whether
or not to deal with the positional threat of
...b5. The old main line 7.Qe2 allows ...b5,
and theory holds that Black can equalise against
it. The main modern preference is the re-
treat 7.Bb3, so that 7...b5 can be met with
8.a4, while 7.a4, stopping ...b5 at the cost of
weakening the b4-square, is also popular, and
was played by Mikhail Botvinnik in his 1963
match with Tigran Petrosian.[1] 7.dxc5 leads to
an early queen exchange, and often to an early
draw. Rarer lines which have been played are
7.e4 (Geller), 7.Nc3, 7.Nbd2, 7.a3, 7.b3, and
7.Bd3.[2]
3...a6 This is the Alekhine Variation. White usually
continues 4.e3. 4...Nf6 tends to return to the main line.
3.e4
White can try to establish a strong pawn centre with 3.e4,
an old move that has become popular again in the last
decade. It is called the Central Variation by Rizzitano,
who notes its increase in popularity and strategic and tac-
tical complexity.[2] Raetsky and Chetverik consider the
line straightforward and critical, and remark that anyone
playing the Queen’s Gambit Accepted must be prepared
to meet it.[1]
Trying to protect the pawn with 3...b5 is fairly risky and
rarely seen.[1] The main reply against the Central Vari-
ation is to oppose the pawn centre with 3...e5, which
is a highly theoretical system. Other replies aimed at
challenging the centre are 3...Nc6 with ideas akin to the
Chigorin Defense, 3...Nf6, provoking 4.e5, and 3...c5 un-
dermining the centre at d4.
3.e3
The apparently modest 3.e3 prepares immediate recov-
ery of the pawn and has often been employed by strong
players, including Anatoly Karpov. The line long had a
harmless reputation due to the early discovery of 3...e5
7.3. QUEEN’S GAMBIT DECLINED 149

which strikes back at the centre. A typical continuation
is then 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4, leading to an isolated queen’s
pawn position. However, the open positions which ensue
have not proved easy for Black to handle in practice, and
many players simply play 3...e6 to transpose back to the
main lines.[1] Nonetheless, 3...e5 was Rizzitano’s recom-
mendation in his repertoire against 3.e3.[2]
An opening trap where Black tries clinging onto the c4-
pawn was pointed out by Alessandro Salvio in 1604. If
Black defends the pawn with 3...b5? 4.a4 c6 5.axb5
cxb5??, the a8–h1 diagonal has been fatally weakened
and 6.Qf3 wins a minor piece. Trying to defend the pawn
by 3...Be6 may hold on to the pawn, but White has good
compensation after 4.Ne2.[1]
• Shaw, John (2002). “Starting out: the Queen’s
Gambit”. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-304-7.
• Sakaev, Konstantin; Semkov, Semko (2005). The
Queen’s Gambit Accepted. Chess Stars. ISBN 954-
8782-33-2.
• Chetverik, Maxim; Raetsky, Alexander (2006).
Starting Out: Queen’s Gambit Accepted. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 1-85744-415-9.
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 2: 1.d4
d5 / 1.d4 various / Queen’s Gambits. New In Chess.
ISBN 978-90-5691-269-7.

3.Nc3
7.2.5 External links
• Annotated Chess - Queen’s Gambit Accepted
3. Nc3 was labelled “misguided” by Raetsky and
Chetverik, because the development does not control d4
and e5, and the knight is vulnerable to a b-pawn advance
from Black. 3...e5, 3...Nf6, and 3...a6 are all reason- 7.3 Queen’s Gambit Declined
able replies,[1] and 3...Nc6 leads to a standard line in the
Chigorin Defense. 3. Nc3 was recommended by Keene The Queen’s Gambit Declined (or QGD) is a chess
and Jacobs in their opening repertoire for white players.[3] opening in which Black declines a pawn offered by White
in the Queen’s Gambit:

3.Qa4+ 1. d4 d5
The queen check by 3.Qa4+ Nc6 4.Nf3 will quickly re- 2. c4 e6
gain the pawn with Qxc4, but the early development of
the queen allows Black to win time by harassing it, so This is known as the Orthodox Line of the Queen’s Gam-
this line is rarely played.[2] bit Declined.[1] When the “Queen’s Gambit Declined” is
mentioned, it is usually assumed to be referring to the Or-
thodox Line; see "Other lines" below.
7.2.3 References The Orthodox Line can be reached by a number of dif-
ferent move orders, such as 1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5; 1.d4 Nf6
[1] Raetsky, Alexander; Chetverik, Maxim (2006). Start-
2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5; 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4; 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4
ing Out:Queen’{}s Gambit Accepted. Everyman Chess. p.
172. ISBN 978-1-85744-415-5.
e6 3.d4; and so on.

[2] Rizzitano, James (2005). How to Beat 1 d4. Gambit. p.

160. ISBN 1-904600-33-6. 7.3.1 General concepts
[3] Keene, Raymond; Jacobs, Byron (1995). An Opening Playing 2...e6 releases Black’s dark-squared bishop,
Repertoire for White. Batsford. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-
while obstructing his light-squared bishop. By declining
7134-7817-4. White’s temporary pawn sacrifice, Black erects a solid
position; the pawns on d5 and e6 give Black a foothold
in the center. The Queen’s Gambit Declined has the rep-
7.2.4 Further reading utation of being one of Black’s most reliable defenses to
1.d4. In this situation, White will try to exploit the passiv-
• Gufeld, Eduard (1986). Queen’s Gambit Accepted. ity of Black’s light-squared bishop, and Black will try to
Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-02-020760-3. release it, trade it, or prove that, while passive, the bishop
has a useful defensive role.
• Flear, Glenn (1994). New Ideas in the Queen’s Gam-
bit Accepted. Henry Holt. ISBN 978-0-8050-3577- An eventual ...dxc4 by Black will surrender the center to
3. White, and Black will usually not do this unless he can ex-
tract a concession, usually in the form of gaining a tempo,
• Ward, Chris (1999). “The Queen’s Gambit Ac- by capturing on c4 only after White has played Bd3 first.
cepted”. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-8467-5. In the Orthodox Line, the fight for the tempo revolves
150 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS
around White’s efforts to play all other useful developing
moves prior to playing Bd3.
7.3.2 Other lines
In its broadest sense, the Queen’s Gambit Declined is any
variation of the Queen’s Gambit in which Black does not
play ...dxc4. Variations other than the Orthodox Line
have their own names and are usually treated separately.[2]
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 – Slav Defense
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 – Chigorin Defense
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 – Albin Countergambit
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 – Baltic Defense
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 – Marshall Defense (unsound and
no longer used by knowledgeable players)
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 – Symmetrical Defense (or Aus-
trian Defense)
• 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 and eventual ...c6 – Semi-Slav De-
fense
Of the 34 games played in the 1927 World Championship
between Alexander Alekhine and José Raúl Capablanca,
all except the first and third began with the Queen’s Gam-
bit Declined.[3]
7.3.3 Black avoids 3...Nf6
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 (other third moves are also Main Line of the QGD: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6
possible: 3.cxd5 may be played to lead to the Exchange 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3
line, 3.Nf3 keeps options open, and 3.g3 will transpose
to the Catalan), Black’s main move is 3...Nf6, though he
has other options as well:
• 3...c6 now the Semi-Slav Defense may be reached
via 4.Nf3 Nf6, though 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+
6.Bd2 (6.Nc3 c5 gives little) 6...Qxd4 7.Bxb4
Qxe4+ 8.Be2 leads to a sharp struggle, and 4.Nf3
dxc4 is the Noteboom Variation, also sometimes
known as the Abrahams Variation, after the English
master, Gerald Abrahams.
• If Black is willing to accept an isolated d-pawn he
can play 3...c5. This leads to a variation of the QGD
called the Tarrasch Defense.
• 3...Be7, the Alatortsev Variation.[4] At top level, this
has recently been played much more often than Nf6.
Sometimes, this transposes to positions arising from
3...Nf6, and has the advantage, from Black’s stand-
point, of avoiding the insidious pressure of the main
lines in the Exchange Variation arising after 3...Nf6
4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 with an annoying pin. In many
cases, the game will simply transpose into the main
lines after 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5, or, White can now play
4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3, when 6...Bf5 7.g4 be-
came a topical line after its adoption by Mikhail
Botvinnik in his 1963 title match with Tigran Pet-
rosian. 6. Qc2 is also popular. These exchange
lines are more popular than transposing at top level.
Also, Be7 is generally agreed to be more accurate
than Nf6.
• 3...Bb4?! confusing a Nimzo–Indian with a Queen’s
Gambit (also known as the Berg defense), and at this
point an inaccuracy. White has at least two good
continuations: 4.Qa4+ Nc6 5.Nf3 where Black is
forced to block the c-pawn with the knight, and 4.a3
Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 and White has the bishop pair almost
for free (on the average worth half a pawn), since
cxd5 is unstoppable and there will be no doubled
pawns as a counterbalance.[5]
• 3...a6, the Janowski Variation, is rare and rather pas-
sive.
7.3.4 Black plays 3...Nf6
Lines beginning with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3
Nf6 are covered by ECO codes D35–D69. These are
old lines that can transpose into many other queen pawn
openings. White has several ways of dealing with Black’s
setup:
QGD Main Variations: 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3
• Tartakower Defense or Tartakower–
Makogonov–Bondarevsky System (TMB
system): 5...h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6, is one of the
most solid continuations for Black.
• Anti-Tartakower–Makogonov–Bondarevsky
(Anti-TMB): 5...h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 this line was
extensively tested in the Kasparov–Karpov matches
in 1980s. To this day Black has no problems in this
line despite being tested at the highest levels. Most
recently Boris Gelfand defended the Black side of
this variation in the 2011 candidates matches which
eventually he went on to win. For example in the
third round of the final candidate match he forced
White to accept a draw in 14 moves with a very
strong novelty: Grischuk vs Gelfand, Elista 2011
• Lasker Defense: 5...0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7, is also a solid line, often leading to the ex-
change of two sets of minor pieces. It was this line
that Viswanathan Anand chose in the final game of
7.3. QUEEN’S GAMBIT DECLINED
the World Chess Championship 2010 in order to de-
feat Veselin Topalov and retain the world champi-
onship.
• Orthodox Defense: 5...0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6
and now White has two main moves: 8.Bd3 and
8.Qc2. After 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Black has sur-
rendered the center and stands somewhat cramped,
but has succeeded in making White lose a tempo
by playing Bd3 before Bxc4. White will try to
use his advantage in space to attack, whereas Black
will try to keep White at bay while striking back
at the center. Capablanca’s main idea here was
the freeing maneuver 9...Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-
0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5
15.f4 Qe7, which has led to a number of exchanges
in the center, though Black must exercise care even
in the wake of this simplification. This line was once
so frequently played that it has a separate code (D69)
in ECO, though the lack of active counter play for
Black has made the main line of the Orthodox a
backwater in modern practice.[6]
Cambridge Springs Defense: 4.Bg5 Nbd7
The Cambridge Springs Defense was introduced more
than a century ago, and is still played. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 (setting up the Elephant Trap)
5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5, now Black intends ...Bb4 and possi-
bly ...Ne4, with pressure along the a5–e1 diagonal. This
Black defense is popular among amateurs because there
are several traps White can fall into, for example 7.Nd2
(one of the main lines, countering Black’s pressure along
the diagonal) 7...Bb4 8.Qc2 0-0 and here 9.Bd3?? loses
since 9...dxc4! (threatening ...Qxg5) 10.Bxf6 cxd3! (a
zwischenzug) 11.Qxd3 Nxf6 wins a piece for Black.
Exchange Variation: 4.cxd5 exd5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2
and White has a pawn majority in the center, Black has
a pawn majority on the queenside. This pawn structure
gives White the opportunity to either advance his pawns 7.3.7 Further reading
in the center by means of Nge2, f2–f3, followed by e2–
e4, or play for a minority attack by means of the plan
Rb1, followed by b2–b4–b5, then bxc6 in order to cre-
ate a weak pawn at c6. While Black can play ...cxb5,
or recapture on c6 with a piece, each of these possibili-
ties are even less desirable than the backward pawn in the
open file. For Black, exchanging at d5 has released his
light-squared bishop and opened the e-file, giving him the
use of e4 as a springboard for central and kingside play.
While chances are balanced, Black is usually more or less
forced to use his superior activity to launch a piece attack
on White’s king, as the long-term chances in the QGD
Exchange structure favour White. The following games
are model games for White:
151
• Central Pawn Advance: Carlsen vs Jakovenko, Nan-
jing 2009
• Minority attack: Evans vs Opsahl, Dubrovnik 1950.
Ragozin Variation: 4.Nf3 Bb4
The Ragozin Variation (ECO code D37–D39) occurs af-
ter 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4. An impor-
tant line in this variation is the Vienna variation where
the game continues: 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4. White’s pawns or
pieces occupy the central squares in exchange for long-
term pawn structure weaknesses. An instance of Vienna
variation played at the highest level was Fine vs Euwe,
AVRO 1938.
7.3.5 See also
• Queen’s Gambit
• Queen’s Gambit Accepted
7.3.6 References
[1] ChessOps - QGAM-03A
[2] ChessOps - The Queen’s Gambit - Overview
[3] “WCC Index [Alekhine-Capablanca 1927]". Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2009-04-13.
[4] ECO D31 QGD: Alatortsev Variation
[5] Heisman, Dan (2006-03-15). “The Most Common Open-
ing Inaccuracies” (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Retrieved
2009-11-16.
[6] De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings (14th
ed.). Random House. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
• Kasparov, Garry; Keene, Raymond (1994) [1989].
Batsford Chess Openings 2. Henry Holt. ISBN 0-
8050-3409-9.
• Lalic, Bogdan (2000). Queen’s Gambit Declined:
Bg5 Systems. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-857-
44240-3.
• Ward, Chris (2002). Unusual Queen’s Gambit De-
clined. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-857-44218-0.
• McDonald, Neil (2006). Starting Out: Queen’s Gam-
bit Declined. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-857-
44426-1.
• Rizzitano, James (2007). Chess Explained: The
Queen’s Gambit Declined. Gambit Publications.
ISBN 978-1-904-60080-0.
152 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 2: 1.d4
d5 / 1.d4 various / Queen’s Gambits. New In Chess.
ISBN 978-9-056-91269-7.
7.4 Cambridge Springs Defense
In chess, the Cambridge Springs Defense (or less com-
monly, the Pillsbury Variation) is a variation of the
Queen’s Gambit Declined and begins with the moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Nbd7
5. Nf3 c6
6. e3 Qa5
Black breaks the pin on the h4–d8 diagonal and forms
a pin of his own on the c3 knight (exploiting the ab-
sence of the White’s queen bishop from the queenside).
If Black later plays dxc4, there may be threats against the
g5-bishop. Note that 5.cxd5 cannot win a pawn because
of the Elephant Trap. The main line continues 7.Nd2 Bb4
with the threat of ...Ne4 and pressure along the a5–e1 di-
agonal.
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) code is
D52.
7.4.1 Background
The first recorded use of the Cambridge Springs was by
Emanuel Lasker in 1892. The name derives from a 1904
tournament in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania in which
the defense was used several times. Practitioners of the
opening have included Efim Bogoljubov, Vasily Smyslov,
and Garry Kasparov.
The line remains popular among amateurs because there
are several traps White must avoid. For example, 7.Nd2
Bb4 8.Qc2 0-0 9.Bd3?? dxc4! (threatening ...Qxg5)
10.Bxf6 cxd3! (a zwischenzug) 11.Qxd3 Nxf6 and Black
has won a piece.
7.4.2 Continuations
White has several choices on his seventh move. The most
common are:
• 7.Nd2 (the main line) immediately breaks the pin on 7.4.5 References
the c3 knight and defends e4; 7...Bb4 is answered by
8.Qc2, defending the c3 knight and covering e4.
• 7.cxd5 avoids complications by clarifying the situa-
tion in the center. Black’s strongest is the recapture
7...Nxd5, continuing the attack on c3.
• 7.Bxf6 avoids tactics involving discovered attacks on
the g5-bishop.
7.4.3 Representative games
• Capablanca vs. Alekhine, Buenos Aires, World
Championship Match, 1927:[1]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6
6.Nf3 Qa5 7.Nd2 Bb4 8.Qc2 dxc4 9.Bxf6 Nxf6
10.Nxc4 Qc7 11.a3 Be7 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 Bd7
14.b4 b6 15.Bf3 Rac8 16.Rfd1 Rfd8 17.Rac1 Be8
18.g3 Nd5 19.Nb2 Qb8 20.Nd3 Bg5 21.Rb1 Qb7
22.e4 Nxc3 23.Qxc3 Qe7 24.h4 Bh6 25.Ne5 g6
26.Ng4 Bg7 27.e5 h5 28.Ne3 c5 29.bxc5 bxc5
30.d5 exd5 31.Nxd5 Qe6 32.Nf6+ Bxf6 33.exf6
Rxd1+ 34.Rxd1 Bc6 35.Re1 Qf5 36.Re3 c4 37.a4
a5 38.Bg2 Bxg2 39.Kxg2 Qd5+ 40.Kh2 Qf5 41.Rf3
Qc5 42.Rf4 Kh7 43.Rd4 Qc6 44.Qxa5 c3 45.Qa7
Kg8 46.Qe7 Qb6 47.Qd7 Qc5 48.Re4 Qxf2+
49.Kh3 Qf1+ 50.Kh2 Qf2+ 51.Kh3 Rf8 52.Qc6
Qf1+ 53.Kh2 Qf2+ 54.Kh3 Qf1+ 55.Kh2 Kh7
56.Qc4 Qf2+ 57.Kh3 Qg1 58.Re2 Qf1+ 59.Kh2
Qxf6 60.a5 Rd8 61.a6 Qf1 62.Qe4 Rd2 63.Rxd2
cxd2 64.a7 d1=Q 65.a8=Q Qg1+ 66.Kh3 Qdf1+ 0–
1 (67.Qg2 Qh1#)
• Gelfand vs. Carlsen, London, World Chess Cham-
pionship Candidates Tournament, 2013:[2]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 c6
6.e3 Qa5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Rc1 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Ba3
10.Rc2 b6 11.Bd3 Ba6 12.0-0 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 0-
0 14.e4 Rfe8 15.e5 h6 16.Bh4 c5 17.Nd2 cxd4
18.cxd4 Rac8 19.Nc4 Qb5 20.f4 Rc7 21.Qxa3 Rxc4
22.Rxc4 Qxc4 23.Bf2 Qc7 24.Rc1 Qb7 25.Qd6
Nf8 26.g3 Rc8 27.Rxc8 Qxc8 28.d5 exd5 29.Qxd5
g6 30.Kg2 Ne6 31.Qf3 Kg7 32.a3 h5 33.h4 Qc2
34.Qb7 Qa4 35.Qf3 b5 36.f5 gxf5 37.Qxf5 Qxa3
38.Qxh5 a5 39.Qg4+ Kf8 40.h5 Qc1 41.Qe4 b4
42.Be3 Qc7 43.Qa8+ Kg7 44.h6+ Kh7 45.Qe4+
Kg8 46.Qa8+ Qd8 47.Qxd8+ Nxd8 48.Kf3 a4
49.Ke4 Nc6 50.Bc1 Na5 51.Bd2 b3 52.Kd3 Nc4
53.Bc3 a3 54.g4 Kh7 55.g5 Kg6 56.Bd4 b2 57.Kc2
Nd2 0–1
7.4.4 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
[1] Capablanca vs. Alekhine
7.5. TARRASCH DEFENSE 153

[2] Gelfand vs. Carlsen The Tarrasch Defense is considered sound. Even if Black
fails to make use of his mobility and winds up in an infe-
Bibliography rior endgame, tied to the defense of his isolated pawn, he
may be able to hold the draw if he defends accurately.
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld. “Cambridge In the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, the Tarrasch De-
Springs Defence.” The Oxford Companion to Chess fense has codes D32 through D34.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. p. 66.

7.4.6 Further reading 7.5.1 Main line: 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6
6. g3 Nf6
• Schiller, Eric (1984). Cambridge Springs Defense.
Chess Enterprises. ISBN 0931462320. 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O

• Panczyk, Krzysztof; Ilczuk, Jacek (2002). The

Cambridge Springs. Gambit Publications. ISBN In the main line, White will isolate Black’s queen pawn
1901983684. with 4. cxd5 exd5 and attempt to exploit its weakness.
The most common setup is to fianchetto his king’s bishop
in order to put pressure on the isolated d5-pawn, as 3...c5
7.4.7 External links has relinquished the possibility of protecting the point d5
by means of ...c6.
• Cambridge Springs Defense
After 4.cxd5, Black may offer the Hennig-Schara Gambit
• 4 Annotated World Championship Games in the with 4...cxd4. While this was once essayed by Alekhine,
Cambridge Springs it has never achieved popularity at master level and is con-
sidered good for White.
On his third move White often plays 3.Nf3 instead (in
7.5 Tarrasch Defense part to avoid the Hennig-Schara), which after 3...c5
4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 transposes to the main line.
The Tarrasch Defense is a chess opening characterized 7. Bg2 Be7 8. 0-0 0-0
by the moves:
In modern praxis, 9.Bg5 is most frequently played here,
though there are other ideas of note, 9.dxc5 and 9.b3 be-
1. d4 d5 ing the main alternatives. (Other lines are 9.Be3, 9.Bf4,
2. c4 e6 and 9.a3.)
3. Nc3 c5

The Tarrasch is a variation of the Queen’s Gambit De- 7.5.2 Swedish Variation
clined.
Swedish Variation: 6...c4
With his third move, Black makes an aggressive bid for
central space. After White plays cxd5 and dxc5, Black
will be left with an isolated pawn on d5. Such a pawn The Swedish Variation (also called the Folkestone Vari-
may be weak, since it can no longer be defended by other ation) is a sharp line beginning 6... c4. Black now has
pawns, but it grants Black a foothold in the center, and a four to three queenside pawn majority, and will try to
Black’s bishops will have unobstructed lines for develop- expand with ...b5, with White aiming for a central break
ment. with e4. The line is considered somewhat dubious, and is
rarely seen nowadays.
The opening was advocated by the German master
Siegbert Tarrasch, who contended that the increased The Swedish Variation has ECO code D33.
mobility Black enjoys is well worth the inherent weak-
ness of the isolated center pawn. Although many other
masters, after the teachings of Wilhelm Steinitz, rejected 7.5.3 See also
the Tarrasch Defense out of hand because of the pawn
weakness, Tarrasch continued to play his opening while
rejecting other variations of the Queen’s Gambit, even to • Semi-Tarrasch Defense
the point of putting question marks on routine moves in
all variations except the Tarrasch (which he awarded an • List of chess openings
exclamation mark) in his book Die moderne Schachpar-
tie. (See chess punctuation.) • List of chess openings named after people
154 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS

7.5.4 References
• Colins, Sam (2005), Understanding the Chess Open-
ings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-904600-28-X
• de Firmian, Nick (2008), Modern Chess Openings
(15th ed.), McKay, ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7
7.5.5 External links
• Opening Report (on the Marshall variation): 1.d4
d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e4 (105 games)
(in Italian)
9.Qxb7 Bb4+) Qd6 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qa6 Be7 12.Bb5
Rb6 13.Bxc6 Rxc6 14.Qd3 exf5 15.0-0 0-0 16.Qxf5, as
in Lipnitsky–Bondarevsky, USSR championship 1951.[3]
White also achieves a “pleasant advantage” with 5.Nbd2
Nf6 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.g3 (Benjamin).
7.6.3 3.cxd5 c6 4.dxc6 Nxc6
Black can play a gambit line where Black generally fol-
lows up with ...e5, causing a pawn exchange in the center
and the removal of the queens. White retains a small ad-
vantage in the queenless middlegame that follows.

7.6.4 See also

7.6 Marshall Defense
• List of chess openings
The Marshall Defense is a chess opening that begins
with the moves: • List of chess openings named after people

1. d4 d5
7.6.5 Notes
2. c4 Nf6?!
[1] ChessGames.com. “Alekhine–Marshall, Baden-Baden
The Marshall Defense is a fairly dubious variation of the 1925”. ChessGames.com. Retrieved 2010-02-08.
Queen’s Gambit Declined. It was played by Frank Mar- [2] However, opening database Chessok.com gives 8.Nh3!
shall in the 1920s, but he gave it up after losing with it to +.48 denying equality for Black.
Alekhine at Baden-Baden in 1925.[1] It is no longer used
by experienced players (Watson 2007:12–14). [3] ChessGames.com. “Lipnitsky–Bondarevsky, Moscow
1951”. ChessGames.com. Retrieved 13 September 2015.
White may choose to ignore Black’s provocative second
move with 3.Nc3, which will usually transpose into nor-
mal lines of the Queen’s Gambit Declined (after 3...e6),
the Slav Defence (after 3...c6), the Queen’s Gambit Ac-
7.6.6 References
cepted (after 3...dxc4) or the Grünfeld Defence (after
• Alburt, Lev (October 2009). “Time, Anyone?".
3...g6).
Chess Life. p. 38.

• Benjamin, Joel. “GM Joel on the Marshall De-

7.6.1 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4
fense”. Chess Life Online (United States Chess Fed-
eration). Retrieved 2010-02-08.
A common continuation, though White may be playing
e4 too early. If Black deviates with 3...Qxd5, 4.Nc3 Qa5 • Watson, John (2007), Mastering the Chess Open-
5.Bd2 is strong, e.g. 5...Qb6 6.Nf3 Qxb2?? 7.Rb1 Qa3 ings, Volume 2, Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-
8.Nb5, winning (Alburt 2009:38). 904600-69-5
After Black retreats the knight with 4...Nf6, White can
continue 5.e5 attacking the knight, or he can get a clear
advantage with 5.f3, or a small advantage with 5.Nc3 7.7 Baltic Defense
e5! 6.Nf3! (6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Ng4![2] ) 6...exd4!
7.Qxd4 (Alburt 2009:38).
For the Baltic Opening (1.Nc3), see Dunst Opening.

7.6.2 4.Nf3! The Baltic Defense (also known as the Grau Defense,
or the Sahovic Defense) is a chess opening characterized
This is most accurate, threatening 5.e4. After 4...Bf5, by the moves:
White achieves a large advantage with 5.Qb3 e6 (5...Nc6
6.Nbd2! Nb6 7.e4 Bg6 8.d5 is very strong) 6.Nc3
(avoiding the complications of 6.Qxb7 Nd7; 6.Nbd2 is 1. d4 d5
also good) 6...Nc6 7.e4 Nxc3 8.exf5 Nd5 9.a3 (avoiding 2. c4 Bf5!?
7.8. SLAV DEFENSE
The Baltic is an unusual variation of the Queen’s Gambit 7.7.3 Notes
Declined (QGD). In most defenses to the QGD, Black
has difficulties developing his queen bishop. This opening 7.7.4 References
takes a radical approach to the problem by bringing out
the queen bishop immediately.
The Baltic has not found widespread acceptance among
chess masters, but some world-class players have used it
including grandmasters Paul Keres and Alexei Shirov.
The ECO code for the Baltic Defense is D06.
7.7.1 White responses
White has a number of replies to this opening, including
3.Nf3, 3.Qb3, 3.cxd5, and 3.Nc3. Play might continue:
3.Nf3 e6
• 4.Qb3 Nc6
• 4.e3 Nf6 5.Qb3 Nc6
• 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Qb3 Nc6
• 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Qb3 Nc6
3.Qb3
3...e5 4.Qxb7 Nd7 5.Nf3 Rb8 6.Qxd5 Bb4+
7.Nfd2 (7.Bd2?? Ne7−+ Webb–Sinclair, Eng-
land 1971) Ne7 8.Qf3 exd4 and Black has de-
velopment and initiative for his pawn
3.cxd5 (Main Line)
3...Bxb1 4.Qa4+ Qd7 5.Qxd7+ Nxd7 6.Rxb1
Ngf6 7.Nf3
3.Nc3
3...e6 4.Qb3?! (4.Nf3) Nc6 5.cxd5 exd5
6.Qxd5 (this is a mistake, as Black has
6...Nxd4, winning) Qxd5 7.Nxd5 0-0-0−+
7.7.2 See also
• Keres Defence (1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+)
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
155
• Nunn, John (1999), Nunn’s Chess Openings, Every-
man Chess, ISBN 1-85744-221-0
• Polugajewski, Lev (1984), Damengambit, Tschig-
orin System bis Tarrasch-Verteidigung, Sportverlag
Berlin
7.7.5 Further reading
• Baltic Defense to the Queens Gambit, by Andrew
Soltis, Chess Digest, ISBN 0-87568-228-6.
• Keres Defence, by Giovanni Falchetta, 1992, ISBN
88-86127-07-3.
7.8 Slav Defense
The Slav Defense is a chess opening that begins with the
moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6
The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen’s
Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early as 1590, it
was not until the 1920s that it started to be explored ex-
tensively. Many masters of Slavic descent helped develop
the theory of this opening, including Alapin, Alekhine,
Bogoljubov, and Vidmar.
The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two
Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches in 1935
and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world cham-
pions, this defense was particularly favored by Euwe,
Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been
adopted by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other
top grandmasters, including use in six of the eight games
that Vladimir Kramnik played as Black in the 2006 World
Championship (in the other two, he played the related
Semi-Slav Defense).
Today the theory of the Slav is very extensive and well-
developed.
7.8.1 General considerations
There are three main variations of the Slav:
• The “Pure” Slav or Main Line Slav where Black at-
tempts to develop the light-squared bishop to f5 or
g4.
• The ...a6 Slav or Chebanenko Slav with ...a6
156 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS

• The Semi-Slav with ...e6 (without developing the down the now open c-file. To avoid this possibility Black
light-squared bishop). The Semi-Slav Defense, a often chooses the move order 2...e6 followed by 3...c6 to
kind of a combination Queen’s Gambit Declined enter the Semi-Slav.
and Slav Defense, is a very complex opening in its
own right. See the Semi-Slav Defense for details.
3.Nc3
• There is also a lesser option, the Schlechter Slav with
...g6 The pressure on Black’s center prevents 3...Bf5? since
after 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3 White wins a pawn. Black can
Black faces two major problems in many variations of the try the Winawer Countergambit, 3...e5, which was in-
Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD): troduced in Marshall–Winawer, Monte Carlo 1901 but
this is thought to be slightly better for White. The most
common continuation is 3...Nf6 when 4.Nf3 transposes
1. Development of his queen bishop is difficult, as it is
to the main line. White can also play 4.e3 when it was
often blocked by a pawn on e6.
thought Black could no longer play the “Pure” Slav with
2. The pawn structure offers White targets, especially 4...Bf5 (and had to choose between 4...e6 or 4...a6) due
the possibility of a minority attack on the queenside to 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3. Therefore, “Pure” Slav players
in the Exchange variation of the QGD. sometimes meet 3.Nc3 with 3...dxc4, the Argentinian
Defense, which can transpose to the main line of the
“Pure” Slav. Recently the Gambit 4...Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5
The “Pure” Slav and ...a6 Slav addresses these problems.
6.Qb3 Nc6 7.Qxb7 Bd7 has revitalized 4...Bf5.
Black’s queen bishop is unblocked; the pawn structure
remains balanced. Also, if Black later takes the gambit
pawn with ...dxc4, the support provided by the pawn on 7.8.3 3.Nf3 Introduction
c6 (and possibly ...a6) allows ...b5 which may threaten to
keep the pawn, or drive away a white piece that has cap- Black usually plays 3...Nf6. 3...e6 transposes to the Semi-
tured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion. Slav. 3...Bf5? is a mistake due to 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3.
On the other hand, Black usually will not be able to de-
velop the queen bishop without first giving up the center
with ...dxc4, developing the bishop may leave the black 7.8.4 Alternatives to 4.Nc3
queenside weak, and the thematic break ...c5 incurs the
loss of a tempo. After 3...Nf6, the main line is 4.Nc3. White can also try
The Slav can be entered by many move orders. The pos- the following alternatives:
sibilities include 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6, 1.Nf3 d5
2.c4 c6 3.d4 Nf6, and so on. 4.Qc2/4.Qb3

A line that is similar to the Catalan Opening is 4. Qc2

7.8.2 Alternatives to 3.Nf3
The main line is 3.Nf3. White can also try the following
alternatives
3.e3
Black often plays 3...Nf6 but 3...Bf5 is considered to be
an easier equalizer. Also, 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 (same as 3.Nc3
Nf6 4.e3 below) may give Black some move-order issues
for those wanting to play the “Pure” Slav and not the semi-
slav or ...a6 Slav.
Exchange Slav: 3.cxd5
The Exchange Variation was once described as “the sys-
tem that takes the fun out of playing the Slav” for Black.[1]
After 3.cxd5 cxd5, the symmetrical position offers White
only the advantage of the extra move, but the drawish
position offers Black little chance to win unless White
is overly ambitious. The rooks will often be exchanged
or 4.Qb3. Often, White will fianchetto his Light Square
Bishop. This has the disadvantage of White’s Queen be-
ing somewhat exposed on c2. Black can meet 4.Qc2
with 4...g6, intending 5...Bf5. White usually plays 5.Bf4
so that after 5...Bf5 6. Qb3 Qb6 White can play 7.
c5! Black has to play 7...Qxb3, which will be met by
8.axb3. White has a moderate advantage in this Queen-
less middlegame, as white can expand on the queenside
and try to create on the queenside, but black’s position
is solid. The most common continuations are 4...dxc4
5.Qxc4 Bf5/Bg4.
Slow Slav: 4.e3
White can avoid the complexities of the main line 4.Nc3
by playing 4.e3. The most common continuation is
4...Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4, when White wins the Bishop
pair but Black gets a solid position and often gets coun-
terplay with ...e5. This line was tested several times in the
2006 World Chess Championship. Alternatively, 5.cxd5
cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7 is fine for Black. White will try to take
7.8. SLAV DEFENSE 157

advantage of the absence of Black’s queen bishop on the the following alternatives
queenside, but this isn't enough to gain an advantage if
Black plays accurately. Another way to play is 4...Bg4.
Steiner Variation: 5...Bg4

7.8.5 4.Nc3 Introduction In the Steiner Variation (also called the Bronstein Vari-
ation), 5...Bg4, White may be discouraged from e4 by the
Black shouldn't play 4...Bf5 because White will gain possibility 6.e4 e5.More often the game continues 6.Ne5
the advantage with either 5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5 followed by Bh5.
6.Qb3. Traditionally Black had a choice between 4...e6,
the Semi-Slav, and 4...dxc4 before developing the queen
Smyslov Variation: 5...Na6
bishop, but in the 1990s 4...a6 was introduced, with the
idea of developing the queenside without locking in the
With the Smyslov Variation, 5...Na6, Black allows the e-
queen bishop or conceding the center.
pawn to come to e4 but can gain counterplay by ...Bg4 and
perhaps bringing the knight to b4 e.g. 6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4
a6 (Chebanenko) Slav: 4...a6 e6 8.0-0 Nb4.

The a6 Slav occurs after 4...a6. Black seeks an early b5,

5...e6 (Soultanbéieff Variation)
either before or after capturing at c4.
White can achieve an important space advantage with 7.8.8 Mainline, Czech Variation: 5...Bf5
5.c5. Both e5 and b6 become important pawn breaks for
black. White will often play his bishop to f4, control- The Czech Variation can be considered the main line.
ling the important dark squares e5, d6, c7, and b8 (this With 5...Bf5, Black prevents 6.e4.
last square reduces Black’s control over the b-file should it
open). The game can continue 5...Bf5 6.Bf4 Nbd7 7.h3
e6 8.e3. Bled Attack 6.Nh4

Dutch Variation: 6.e3

7.8.6 4...dxc4 – Alternatives to 5.a4
If White plays 6.e3, the Dutch Variation, play
After 4...dxc4, The main line is 5.a4. White can also try can continue 6...e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 with
the following alternatives a fairly quiet game. Black can also play 6...Na6
with the idea of 7...Nb4, known as the Dutch,
Lasker Variation.
Slav Geller Gambit: 5.e4

White’s sharpest try against 4...dxc4 is the Slav Geller Krause Attack: 6.Ne5
Gambit, 5.e4. Play usually continues 5...b5 6.e5 Nd5
7.a4 e6, but it is unclear whether the attack is strong
enough for the sacrificed pawn. Evaluation of this line
changes as improvements are found, but as of 2005 it is
generally thought to favor Black.
White maintains the pawn with 5.e3
5.e3 is a solid choice known as the Alekhine Variation
Play can proceed 5...b5 6.a4 b4
A more energetic line begins 6.Ne5 (Krause
Attack) where White intends f2–f3 and e2–e4
or Nxc4, perhaps followed by a fianchetto of
the king bishop with g2–g3 and Bg2. Black can
try either 6...Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 or 7...Nb6 or
6...e6 7.f3 Bb4, when 8.e4 Bxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4
is a complex piece sacrifice with the possi-
ble continuation 10.Bd2 Qxd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4+
12.Qe2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Qd5+ 14.Kc2 Na6.

• 7.Na2 e6 8.Bxc4 7.8.9 Notes

• 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Nbd2 c3 9.bxc3 Bxf1 10.Nxf1 bxc3 [1] Kasparov, Garry and Keene, Raymond (1989). Batsford
Chess Openings 2. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-6099-7.

7.8.7 Alapin Variation: 5.a4 Alternatives

to 5...Bf5 7.8.10 References
With 5.a4 White acts against ...b5 and prepares 6.e4 and • Nunn, John (1999). Nunn’s Chess Openings. Every-
7.Bxc4. Black’s main move is 5...Bf5. Black can also try man. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
158 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS

• Burgess, Graham (2000). The Mammoth Book of 8.Be2 and 8.Bb3 less common alternatives. The line
Chess. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9. was first played in 1906 in the game Schlechter–Perlis.[2]
The variation takes its name from the town of Meran
• Burgess, Graham (2001). The Slav. Gambit. ISBN (Merano) in northern Italy. During a 1924 tourna-
1-901983-44-7. ment in Meran, it was used successfully in the game
• Fine, Reuben (1990). Ideas Behind the Chess Open- Gruenfeld–Rubinstein. Gruenfeld adopted the same vari-
ings. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN 0- ation[3]two rounds later against Spielmann, winning as
8129-1756-1. well. Viswanathan Anand won two games with Black
in his World Chess Championship 2008 match with
Vladimir Kramnik. Black surrenders his outpost on d5,
gaining a tempo for queenside space expansion by b7–b5.
7.9 Semi-Slav Defense White will play in the center, leading to a rich, compli-
cated game. These opposing strategies, with the ensuing
The Semi-Slav Defense is a variation of the Queen’s keen play, have long made the Meran a favorite for enter-
Gambit chess opening defined by the position reached af- prising players of either color. An example is Gligoric v
ter the moves: Ljubojevic, Belgrade, 1979.[4]
After the move 8.Bd3, Black usually plays 8...a6. Bent
1. d4 d5 Larsen introduced the move 8...Bb7, which has been
2. c4 c6 dubbed the “improved Meran”.[5] According to one
3. Nf3 Nf6 source, the move was first played in 1923, but since it
was developed by Larsen, it carries his name. Black can
4. Nc3 e6 also play 8...Bd6, which is the move Anand played in his
victory over Levon Aronian in the Tata Steel Chess Tour-
The position may readily be reached by a number of dif- nament 2013.[6]
ferent move orders. With Black advancing pawns to both
Though appearing in contemporary master play with less
e6 and c6, the opening resembles a mixture of the Ortho-
frequency than the Meran, there are other possibilities:
dox Queen’s Gambit Declined (QGD) and the Slav De-
6...Be7, 6...Bb4, introduced by the Italian master Max
fense.
Romih, and 6...Bd6, which was much the most popular
Black is threatening to capture the white pawn on c4, and line before the debut of the Meran, and espoused by the
hold it with b7–b5. White can avoid this in a number American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier throughout his
of ways. About 80% of games continue 5.Bg5 or 5.e3: career.
the former constitutes a sharp pawn sacrifice, while the
6...Bd6 and now 7. 0-0 0-0 8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4
latter restricts the dark-squared bishop from its natural
10. Bxe4 is the most common line. There are now sev-
development to g5. Other possible moves are 5.Qb3,
eral alternatives for Black, with one a clear error, as it
5.g3 and 5.cxd5, the last of which, after 5...exd5, leads
loses a pawn: 10... e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5
to a line of the QGD Exchange Variation where White’s
13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qh5+ Kg8 15. Qxe5. This line,
early Nf3 enables Black’s queen bishop to freely develop,
however, has a strong drawish tendency in practice, due
which should give equality (ECO codes D43 and D45).
to the opposite-colored bishops, although all the heavy
For the Semi-Slav the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings pieces remain on the board.
designates codes D43 through D49.
Black’s other choices include 10...c5, although theory re-
gards this as premature as it enables White to play for a
7.9.1 5.e3 kingside attack with 11.Bc2, followed by Qd3 and Bg5.
10...Nf6 has also been played, but this misplaces the
The main line continues with 5...Nbd7. The bishop knight and does nothing to further Black’s play against
moves 5...Bd6 and 5...Be7 are seldom seen, as masters re- the center by means of the pawn breaks c6–c5 or e6–e5.
alized early on that at e7, the bishop was passively placed Bisguier preferred 10...h6 and it has come to be consid-
and does nothing to further one of Black’s aims, the free- ered the strongest plan.
ing move ...e5. The unusual move 5...a6 is considered The other ideas, 6...Be7, which has the same drawback
solid for Black. Some sources call 5...a6 the “accelerated as after 5.e3 Be7, and 6...Bb4, have become sidelines in
Meran”.[1] modern play.

Meran Variation: 6.Bd3

Anti-Meran Variation: 6.Qc2
The main variation of the Semi-Slav is the Meran Vari-
ation, 6... dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 (ECO codes D46 to Position after 7.g4
D49), when play usually continues with 8.Bd3, with
7.9. SEMI-SLAV DEFENSE
The main alternative to 6.Bd3 has become 6.Qc2, once a
sideline, this move exploded in popularity in the 1990s, in
large part due to Anatoly Karpov's advocacy. The idea is
to wait for Black to commit to ...dxc4 before playing Bd3.
Black commonly replies with 6...Bd6 and now White can
choose between two very different continuations:
Karpov Variation: 7.Bd3 7.Bd3, Karpov first played
7.Be2 but it soon transpired that the d3-square gives
White better chances.
Shirov–Shabalov Gambit: 7.g4 Another increasingly
common gambit line used in the Anti-Meran is the sharp
7.g4. Popularized by Alexander Shabalov and Alexey
Shirov, the gambit destabilizes the center for Black and
has been successful for several grandmasters, including
Kasparov, who won the first game of his 2003 match
against the computer chess program Deep Junior with 7.9.3
it.[7]
7.9.2 5.Bg5
Position after 5.Bg5
The Anti-Meran Gambit (ECO code D44) arises after
5.Bg5. Possible replies include 5...Nbd7, 5...dxc4, 5...h6,
and 5...Be7. White refuses to shut in the dark-squared
bishop, instead developing it to an active square where
it pins the black knight. It is now possible for Black to
transpose to either the Cambridge Springs Defence with
5... Nbd7 6. e3 Qa5, or enter the Orthodox Defense with
6...Be7.
Botvinnik Variation: 5...dxc4
This line is extremely complicated, with theory stretch-
ing past move thirty in some variations. Black captures [8] Igor Štohl, Chessbase Tutorials Volume 3
a pawn by 5...dxc4. White takes control of the center
with 6.e4 as Black defends with 6...b5. The main line
of the Botvinnik now continues 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. 7.9.4 References
Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7. White will regain his piece
with interest, emerging with an extra pawn, but Black will
soon complete his development, gaining great dynamic
compensation, whereas White’s task is rather more dif-
ficult. White will fianchetto his king bishop and castle
kingside, while Black will play c5, Qb6, castle queenside,
and can carry out an attack in the center or on either flank,
leading to complex play. The opening was introduced by
Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1945 USSR vs USA radio match
vs Arnold Denker. Today, Alex Yermolinsky has an ex-
cellent record with the white pieces and Alexei Shirov has
been Black’s chief proponent in this variation. Although
this variation bears Botvinnik’s name, he was not the first
person known to have played it—Klaus Junge is credited
as the actual inventor.[8]
159
Moscow Variation: 5...h6
The Moscow Variation 5... h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 gives rise
to play of a different character from the Botvinnik vari-
ation. Black has the bishop pair, which gives him good
long-term chances, but must avoid prematurely opening
the position in the face of White’s superior development
and central control, as his position is initially solid but
passive. Alexei Dreev has played this line successfully as
Black. The gambit line 6.Bh4 (the Anti-Moscow Vari-
ation) was once considered dubious, but has seen a re-
cent resurgence. In return for the pawn, White receives
a lead in development and a strong initiative. This dy-
namic line, which is characteristic of the modern game,
has been played by many strong grandmasters, with the
theoretical verdict remaining inconclusive.
Notes
[1] http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/D45_Semi_Slav_
Defense_Accelerated_Meran_Variation
[2] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=
D48
[3] “An Opening Created in 1924 Still Leads to Complex Bat-
tles” New York Times , 29 January 2006
[4] Gligoric v Ljubojevic, Belgrade, 1979
[5] http://www.chess.com/article/view/
larsenrsquos-improved-meran-the-great-dane-deigns-to-allow-check
[6] http://en.chessbase.com/Home/
TabId/211/PostId/4010058/
cbm-153--for-professionals-and-connoisseurs-070613.
aspx
[7] Kasparov vs. Deep Junior, Game 1
• Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, volume D, sections
43–49
• Kuijf, Marinus (1995). Slav: Botvinnik Variation.
New In Chess. ISBN 90-71689-80-8.
• Glenn Flear (2005). Starting Out: Slav & Semi-Slav.
Everyman chess. ISBN 1-85744-393-4.
• Vera, Reinaldo (2007). Chess Explained: The
Meran Semi-Slav. Gambit. ISBN 9781904600817.
• David Vigorito, Play the Semi-Slav, Quality Chess,
2008 ISBN 978-91-85779-01-7
160 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS
7.10 Symmetrical Defense
The Symmetrical Defense (or Austrian Defense) is a
chess opening that begins with the moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 c5
First described in print by Alessandro Salvio in 1604,
the opening is often called the Austrian Defense because
it was studied by Austrian chess players including Hans
Haberditz (c. 1901–57), Hans Müller (1896–1971), and
GM Ernst Grünfeld.[1]
The Symmetrical Defense is an uncommon variation of
the Queen’s Gambit Declined. It poses the purest test of
Queen’s Gambit theory—whether Black can equalize by
simply copying White’s moves. Most opening theoreti-
cians believe that White should gain the advantage and at
best Black is playing for a draw.[2]
7.10.1 3.cxd5
White often replies 3.cxd5, but other moves are playable
and may lead to transpositions into more well-known vari-
ations such as the Queen’s Gambit Accepted and the
Tarrasch Defense. After 3.cxd5 it is not advisable for
Black to play 3...Qxd5, because either 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nc3
Qa5 6.Nxd4 or 5...Qd8 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 give White
a big lead in development.[3] Instead, Black should play
3...Nf6 intending to recapture on d5 with his knight.
White should be able to maintain the advantage with ei-
ther 4.Nf3 or 4.e4. Possible continuations are 4.Nf3 cxd4
5.Nxd4 Nxd5 6.e4 Nc7 or 4.e4 Nxe4 5.dxc5 Nxc5 6.Nc3
e6.[4][5]
7.10.2 References
[1] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996), “Austrian De-
fence”, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford Univer-
sity, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
[2] Korn, Walter (1982), “Queen’s Gambit Declined”,
Modern Chess Openings (Twelfth ed.), David McKay, p.
266, ISBN 0-679-13500-6
[3] Pachman, Luděk (1982), The Opening Game in Chess,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 140, ISBN 0-7100-9222-9
[4] Nunn, John, ed. (1999), “1 d4 d5 and Unusual Replies to
the Queen’s Gambit”, Nunn’s Chess Openings, Everyman
Chess, p. 365, ISBN 1-85744-221-0
[5] Kasparov, Garry; Keene, Raymond (1994) [1989],
“Queen’s Gambit”, Batsford Chess Openings 2, Henry
Holt, p. 80, ISBN 0-8050-3409-9
7.11 Chigorin Defense
For the Chigorin Variation of the Ruy Lopez, see Ruy
Lopez § Chigorin Variation.
The Chigorin Defense is a chess opening named for 19th
century Russian grandmaster Mikhail Chigorin. An un-
commonly played defense to the Queen’s Gambit, it be-
gins with the moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 Nc6
The Chigorin Defense violates several classical principles:
Black does not maintain the center pawn at d5, the c-pawn
is blocked, and Black must be willing to trade a bishop
for a knight. In return Black gets quick development and
piece pressure on the center.
Although opening assessments change as improvements
are found for each side, the Chigorin is generally con-
sidered playable for Black and it is useful as a surprise
weapon against the Queen’s Gambit. Alexander Moroze-
vich is perhaps the only modern grandmaster who regu-
larly plays the Chigorin Defense, although in the 1980s,
Vasily Smyslov did employ the opening against Garry
Kasparov. Morozevich has also published a book on the
Chigorin Defence,[1] in which he gives both a theoretical
and a personal view on the opening.
7.11.1 Main variations
The Chigorin Defense has the ECO classification D07.
Because the Chigorin is an unusual defense, the theory
of this opening is not as well developed as that for more
popular openings.
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 some of the most commonly
played variations are:
3.Nc3
• 3...Nf6 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 e5 7.d5 Nb8
or 7.Nf3 exd4.
• 3...dxc4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e4 Bg4 6.Be3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4
is a position that occurs very frequently in current
practice.
3.Nf3
• 3...Bg4 4.cxd5 Bxf3 (see first diagram)
• 5.gxf3 Qxd5 6.e3 and now Black has two very
different, but proven ways of playing 6...e5
7.Nc3 Bb4 and 6...e6 7.Nc3 Qh5.
7.12. ALBIN COUNTERGAMBIT 161

• 5.dxc6 Bxc6 6.Nc3 and Black has now two The opening is an uncommon defense to the Queen’s
well established options 6...Nf6 and 6...e6. Gambit. In exchange for the gambit pawn, Black has a
central wedge at d4 and gets some chances for an attack.
• 3...e6 is a bad move. Often White will try to return the pawn at an opportune
moment to gain a positional advantage.
3.cxd5 Qxd5 In the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings the Albin Coun-
tergambit is assigned codes D08 and D09.
• 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 (see second dia-
gram)
• 7.bxc3 and now black’s main moves are
7.12.1 History
7...Nf6 and 7...Qd6.
Although this opening was originally played by Cavallotti
• 7.Bxc3 has received considerable attention in against Salvioli at the Milan tournament of 1881, it takes
recent years and 7...exd4 8.Ne2 Nf6 9.Nxd4 its name from Adolf Albin, who played it against Lasker
0-0 seems to be considered Black’s most re- in New York 1893. Though not played frequently at the
liable choice, but the sharper 8...Bg4 is also master level, Russian Grandmaster Alexander Moroze-
sometimes played. vich has recently made some successful use of it.
• 4. Nf3
7.12.2 Main line
7.11.2 Notes
Main line after 3...d4 4.Nf3 Nc6
[1] Alexander Morozevich & Vladimir Barskij, The Chigorin
Defence According to Morozevich, 2007
The main line continues 4.Nf3 Nc6 (4...c5 allows 5.e3
because Black no longer has the bishop check) and now
7.11.3 References White’s primary options are 5.a3, 5.Nbd2, and 5.g3. Per-
haps White’s surest try for an advantage is to fianchetto his
• Ward, Chris (2002). Unusual Queen’s Gambit De- king bishop with 5.g3 followed by Bg2 and Nbd2. Black
clined. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-218-0. will often castle queenside. A typical continuation is 5.g3
Be6 6.Nbd2 Qd7 7.Bg2 0-0-0 8.0-0 Bh3.
• Broznik, Valeri (2001). Die Tschigorin-
Verteidigung. Schachverlag Kania. ISBN 3-
931192-21-0. 7.12.3 Variations

Lasker trap
7.11.4 Further reading
The Black pawn at d4 is stronger than it may appear. The
• Watson, John (1981). Queen’s Gambit, Chigorin De-
careless move 4.e3? can lead to the Lasker Trap. After
fence. Batsford. ISBN 978-0713439960.
4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4?? is a blunder—6...exf2+
7.Ke2 fxg1=N+! and Black wins. The Lasker Trap is no-
7.11.5 External links table because it is rare to see an underpromotion in prac-
tical play.
• 869 games at ChessGames.com
Spassky Variation
7.12 Albin Countergambit In the Spassky Variation White plays 4.e4 to take advan-
tage of the fact that an en passant capture must be made
The Albin Countergambit is a chess opening that begins immediately after the enemy pawn advances. So now af-
with the moves: ter 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 the en passant capture ...dxe3 is no
longer available to Black.
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e5
7.12.4 See also
and the usual continuation is: • List of chess openings

3. dxe5 d4 • List of chess openings named after people

162 CHAPTER 7. D4 OPENINGS – QUEEN’S GAMBIT OPENINGS

7.12.5 References
• Ward, Chris (2002). Unusual Queen’s Gambit De-
clined. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-218-0.

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992). The Ox-

ford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford Univer-
sity Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• Adolf Albin and the Genesis of the Albin Counter
Gambit Part I, O. G. Urcan, chesscafe.com
• Adolf Albin and the Genesis of the Albin Counter
Gambit Part II, O. G. Urcan, chesscafe.com

7.12.6 Further reading

• Luc Henris, The Complete Albin Counter-Gambit,
Jean-Louis Marchand Editions, Brussels, 2013.

7.12.7 External links

• Albin Counter Gambit Bibliography

• Opening Report: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 (4063

games)
Chapter 8

d4 Openings – Indian Defence

8.1 Indian Defence invites transposition to a Benoni. White can deny Black
any of these transpositions and by refraining from c2-c4
Indian defences are chess openings characterised by the over the next several moves.
moves: On the second move, White can also play 2.Bg5, the
Trompowsky Attack. Black can respond 2...Ne4 (see
1. d4 Nf6[1] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4), or 2...e6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6),
among other moves. A third alternative for White is the
They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, rarer 2.Nc3. Then black may play 2...d5 for Richter-
where Black invites White to establish an imposing pres- Veresov Attack (D01, see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5). Black
ence in the centre with the plan of undermining and ulti- may also play 2...g6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6).
mately destroying it. Although the Indian defences were
championed in the 1920s by players in the hypermodern
school, they were not fully accepted until Russian play-
8.1.1 Variations
ers showed in the late 1940s that these systems are sound
Nimzo-Indian Defence
for Black. Since then, the Indian defences have become
King’s Indian Defence
a popular way for Black to respond to 1.d4 because they
Grünfeld Defence
often offer an unbalanced game with winning chances for
Queen’s Indian Defence
both sides. Transpositions are important and many vari-
Benoni Defense
ations can be reached by several move orders.
The usual White second move is 2.c4, grabbing a larger
share of the centre and allowing the move Nc3, to prepare • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 b6 Accelerated Queen’s Indian De-
for moving the e-pawn to e4 without blocking the c-pawn fence
with the knight. Black’s most popular replies are
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 Benoni Defence
• 2...e6, freeing the king’s bishop and leading into the • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 Benko Gambit (or Volga
Nimzo-Indian Defence, Queen’s Indian Defence, Gambit)
Bogo-Indian Defence, Modern Benoni, Catalan
Opening, or regular lines of the Queen’s Gambit De- • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 Slav-Indian Defence
clined,
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 Black Knights’ Tango
• 2...g6, preparing a fianchetto of the king’s bishop
and entering the King’s Indian Defence or Grünfeld • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 Old Indian Defence
Defence, and • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5 Janowski Indian De-
• 2...c5, the Benoni Defense, with an immediate fence
counter-punch in the centre, • 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Ne4 Döry Defence

but other moves are played as detailed below.
Instead of 2.c4, White often plays 2.Nf3. Then Black
may play 2...d5 which may transpose to a Queen’s Gambit
after 3.c4. Or Black may play 2...e6 which retains pos-
sibilities of transposing to a Queen’s Gambit or Queen’s
Indian Defence. Alternatively 2...g6 may transpose to a
King’s Indian Defence or Grünfeld Defence, while 2...c5
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 Budapest Gambit
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 Nimzo-Indian Defence
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 Modern Benoni
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ Bogo-Indian Defence
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b5 Polish Defence

163
164 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 Queen’s Indian Defence occasionally adopted it, with good results, including a
win in his 1972 World Championship match against Boris
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5 Blumenfeld Spassky. Often Black adopts a slightly different move
Gambit order, playing 2...e6 before 3...c5 in order to avoid the
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Catalan Opening sharpest lines for White.
The Benko Gambit is often played by strong players, and
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Bg5 Neo-Indian Attack
is very popular at lower levels. Black plays to open lines
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. a3?! Australian Attack on the queenside where White will be subject to consider-
able pressure. If White accepts the gambit, Black’s com-
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 Grünfeld Defence pensation is positional rather than tactical, and his initia-
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 King’s Indian Defence tive can last even after many piece exchanges and well
(KID) into the endgame. White often chooses instead either to
decline the gambit pawn or return it.
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 h6 3.c4 g5 Nadanian Attack
The Bogo-Indian Defence is a solid alternative to the
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Torre Attack Queen’s Indian, into which it sometimes transposes. It is
less popular than that opening, however, perhaps because
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 East Indian Defence many players are loath to surrender the bishop pair (par-
ticularly without doubling White’s pawns), as Black of-
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 O-O
6. Be2 Barry Attack ten ends up doing after 4.Nbd2. The classical 4.Bd2 Qe7
is also often seen, although more recently 4...a5!? and
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Trompowsky Attack even 4...c5!? have emerged as alternatives. Transposi-
tion to the Nimzo-Indian with 4.Nc3 is perfectly playable
Advocated by Nimzowitsch as early as 1913, the Nimzo- but rarely seen, since most players who play 3.Nf3 do so
Indian Defence was the first of the Indian systems to gain in order to avoid that opening.
full acceptance. It remains one of the most popular and The Old Indian Defence was introduced by Tarrasch in
well-respected defences to 1.d4, and White often chooses 1902, but it is more commonly associated with Chigorin
move orders designed to avoid it. Black attacks the centre who adopted it five years later. It is similar to the King’s
with pieces and is prepared to trade a bishop for a knight Indian in that both feature a ...d6 and ...e5 pawn centre,
to weaken White’s queenside with doubled pawns. but in the Old Indian Black’s king bishop is developed to
The King’s Indian Defence is aggressive and somewhat e7 rather than being fianchettoed on g7. The Old Indian is
risky, and generally indicates that Black will not be sat- solid, but Black’s position is usually cramped and it lacks
isfied with a draw. Although it was played occasionally the dynamic possibilities found in the King’s Indian.
as early as the late 19th century, the King’s Indian was The Black Knights’ Tango or Mexican Defence intro-
considered inferior until the 1940s when it was featured duced by Carlos Torre in 1925 in Baden-Baden shares
in the games of Bronstein, Boleslavsky, and Reshevsky. similarities with Alekhine’s Defence as Black attempts to
Fischer’s favoured defence to 1.d4, its popularity faded induce a premature advance of the white pawns. It may
in the mid-1970s. Kasparov’s successes with the defence transpose into many other defences.
restored the King’s Indian to prominence in the 1980s.
The Neo-Indian Attack, Torre Attack, and Trompowsky
Ernst Grünfeld debuted the Grünfeld Defence in 1922. Attack are White anti-Indian variations. Related to the
Distinguished by the move 3...d5, Grünfeld intended it as Richter-Veresov Attack, they feature an early Bg5 by
an improvement to the King’s Indian which was not con- White and avoid much of the detailed theory of other
sidered entirely satisfactory at that time. The Grünfeld queen’s pawn openings. Another option is the Barry At-
has been adopted by World Champions Smyslov, Fischer, tack, popular with club players and characterised by the
and Kasparov. moves 1.d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3
The Queen’s Indian Defence is considered solid, safe, O-O 6. Be2. White usually follows up with Ne5 and h2-
and perhaps somewhat drawish. Black often chooses the h4-h5, a direct attack on the Black king. The Barry At-
Queen’s Indian when White avoids the Nimzo-Indian by tack has also been tried out at Grandmaster level by Mark
playing 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3. Black constructs a sound Hebden and Julian Hodgson.
position that makes no positional concessions, although The Blumenfeld Gambit (or Countergambit) bears a su-
sometimes it is difficult for Black to obtain good winning perficial but misleading resemblance to the Benko Gam-
chances. Karpov is a leading expert in this opening. bit, as Black’s goals are very different. Black gambits a
The Benoni Defense is a risky attempt by Black to un- wing pawn in an attempt to build a strong centre. White
balance the position and gain active piece play at the cost can either accept the gambit or decline it to maintain a
of allowing White a pawn wedge at d5 and a central ma- small positional advantage. Although the Blumenfeld is
jority. Tal popularised the defence in the 1960s by win- playable for Black it is not very popular.
ning several brilliant games with it, and Bobby Fischer
8.1. INDIAN DEFENCE
The Döry Defence (2...Ne4 or 2...e6 3.Nf3 Ne4) is un-
common, but it was sometimes adopted by Keres. It will
sometimes transpose into a variation of the Queen’s In-
dian Defence but there are also independent lines.
The Accelerated Queen’s Indian Defence (2...b6) is
playable, although modern theory favours the Queen’s In-
dian only after 2...e6 3 Nf3.
The Slav-Indian Defence is an obscure idea that may
transpose into the King’s Indian or Slav Defence.
The Budapest Gambit is rarely played in grandmaster what would today be called the Four Pawns Attack against
games, but more often adopted by amateurs. Although the King’s Indian Defence. This time Moheschunder, as
it is a gambit, White cannot hold on to his extra pawn Black, won after some enterprising (and perhaps dubious)
without making compromises in the deployment of his sacrificial play:
pieces, so he often chooses to return the pawn and retain
the initiative.
The Nadanian Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 h6 3.c4 g5) is an
aggressive attempt by Black to unbalance the position.
The early 2...h6 and 3...g5 are designed to deal with a
drawish variations such as Colle System, London System
and Torre Attack. The line was introduced in 2005 by
Ashot Nadanian, but has never enjoyed widespread pop-
ularity among top-flight chess players.
8.1.2 Historical background
The earliest known use of the term “Indian Defence”
was in 1884, and the name was attributed to the open-
ing’s use by the Indian player Moheschunder Banner-
jee against John Cochrane.[2] Philip W. Sergeant de-
scribes Moheschunder as having been as of 1848 “a
Brahman in the Mofussil—up country, as we might say—
who had never been beaten at chess!"[3] Sergeant wrote
in 1934 (substituting algebraic notation for his descrip-
tive notation):[4]
The Indian Defences by g6 coupled with
d6, or b6 coupled with e6, were largely taught
to European players by the example of Mo-
heschunder and other Indians, to whom the fi-
anchetto developments were a natural legacy
from their own game. The fondness for them of
the present Indian champion of British chess,
Mir Sultan Khan, is well known. But they are
now so widely popular that Dr. S. G. Tar-
takover was able to declare, some years ago,
that “to-day fianchettos are trumps.” A sequel
hardly to have been anticipated from the dis-
covery of Moheschunder in the Mofussil!
In the following game, Moheschunder (Black) plays the
Grünfeld Defence against Cochrane in 1855—some 38
years before Ernst Grünfeld was born.
John Cochrane–Moheschunder Bannerjee,
May 1855:
165
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Bg7
5. Nf3 0-0 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Be2 Nxc3 8.
bxc3 c5 9. 0-0 cxd4 10. cxd4 Nc6 11. Bb2
Bg4 12. Rc1 Rc8 13. Ba3 Qa5 14. Qb3
Rfe8 15. Rc5 Qb6 16. Rb5 Qd8 17. Ng5
Bxe2 18. Nxf7 Na5 and White mates in three
(19.Nh6+ double check Kh8 20.Qg8+ Rxg8
21.Nf7#).[5][6]
Another of the games between these players transposed to
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f4
0-0 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Bd3? e5! 8. fxe5 dxe5 9.
d5 Nxe4!? 10. Nxe4 f5 11. Neg5 e4 12. Ne6
exf3! 13. Nxd8?! fxg2 14. Rg1 Bxd1 15.
Ne6 Bg4 16. Nxf8 Kxf8 17. Rxg2 Nd7 18.
Bf4 Nc5 19. Kd2 Rc8 20. Kc2 Bf3 21. Rf2
Nxd3 22. Kxd3 Be4+ 23. Ke3 b5 24. cxb5
Bxd5 25. Rd2 Bc4 26. Rad1 Bf6 27. Bh6+
Kg8 28. Kf4 Re8 29. b3 Bxb5 30. Rc1 Be2!
31. Re1 Re4+ 32. Kg3 Bh4+ 0–1[7]
The modern names "King’s Indian Defence", "Queen’s
Indian Defence", "Old Indian Defence" and "King’s In-
dian Attack" were attributed by Richard Reti to Hans
Kmoch, though Reti himself did not approve of these
terms. Reti also attributed to Kmoch the terms “All In-
dian Defence” (where Black fianchettoes both bishops af-
ter 1.d4 Nf6) and “Queen’s Indian Attack” (where White
opens 1.Nf3 and 2.b3) but these did not come into general
use.[8]
8.1.3 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
8.1.4 References
Notes
[1] ECO: A45 Queen’s Pawn: Indian
[2] “Indian Defence”, Chess Player’s Chronicle: 172, 22 Oc-
tober 1884, retrieved 2008-07-22 In this case the opening
moves were 1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6.
[3] Philip W. Sergeant, A Century of British Chess, David
McKay, 1934, p. 68.
[4] Sergeant, pp. 68-69.
[5] Edward Winter, Kings, Commoners and Knaves: Further
Chess Explorations, Russell Enterprises, Inc., 1999, p.
141. ISBN 1-888690-04-6.
166
[6] Cochrane-Moheschunder
[7] Tim Harding, A History of The City of London Chess
Magazine (Part 1). Retrieved on 2009-03-18.
[8] Richard Reti,Die Meister des Schachbretts (Masters of the 2016 World Chess Championship against Sergey Kar-
Chessboard), p121, p160 (1930)
Bibliography
• De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings: Black has a number of ways to meet the Trompowsky,
MCO-14, Random House Puzzles & Games, ISBN some of which avoid doubled pawns, while others allow
0-8129-3084-3 them. The most common Black responses are discussed
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996), The Ox- here.
ford Companion to Chess, Oxford University, ISBN
0-19-280049-3
• Kasparov, Garry; Keene, Raymond (1994) [1989],
Batsford Chess Openings 2, Henry Holt, ISBN 0-
8050-3409-9
• Nunn, John (1999), Nunn’s Chess Openings, Every-
man Chess, ISBN 1-85744-221-0
• Bosch, Jeroen (2006), “8”, Secrets of Opening Sur-
prises, 5, New in Chess, p. 144, ISBN 90-5691-170-
8 ...h6 advance.
8.1.5 Further reading
• Palliser, Richard (2008), Starting out: d-pawn at-
tacks. The Colle-Zukertort, Barry and 150 Attacks,
Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-578-7
8.2 Trompowsky Attack
The Trompowsky Attack is a chess opening that begins
with the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. Bg5
With his second move, White intends to exchange his
bishop for Black’s knight, inflicting doubled pawns upon
Black in the process. This is not a lethal threat; Black can
choose to fall in with White’s plan.
The Trompowsky is a popular alternative to the more
common lines after 1.d4 Nf6 beginning 2.c4 or 2.Nf3.
By playing 2.Bg5, White sidesteps immense bodies of
opening theory of various Indian Defences like the
Queen’s Indian, King’s Indian, Nimzo-Indian, as well as
the Grünfeld Defence.
The opening is named after the one-time Brazilian cham-
pion Octávio Trompowsky (1897–1984) who played it in
the 1930s and 1940s. The Trompowsky has also been
called The Zot.[1]
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
Julian Hodgson and Antoaneta Stefanova are among sev-
eral grandmasters who often employ the Trompowsky.
World Champion Magnus Carlsen has occasionally em-
ployed the Trompowsky, notably in the first game of the
jakin.
8.2.1 Main lines
• 2... Ne4 is the most common reply. Although
Black violates an opening principle (“Don't move
the same piece twice in the opening”), his move at-
tacks White’s bishop, forcing it to either move again
or be defended.
• 3. h4 (Raptor Variation[2] ) defends the bishop,
and Black should avoid 3...Nxg5? since that
will open up a file for the White rook. Instead
Black can start making a grab for the centre
and kick the White bishop away with a timely
• Usually, White retreats with 3. Bf4 or 3.
Bh4. In this case, Black will try to maintain
his knight on e4, or at least gain a concession
before retreating it. (For instance, if White
chases the knight away with f3, he will have
taken away the best development square from
his own knight.)
• 3. Nf3? is rarely seen except among amateurs;
after 3... Nxg5 4. Nxg5 e5! Black regains
the lost time by the discovered attack on the
knight; White’s center is liquidated and he has
no compensation for the bishop pair.
• 2... e6 also avoids doubled pawns since the queen
can recapture if White plays Bxf6. The move 2...e6
also opens a diagonal for the Black king’s bishop
to develop. On the other hand, the knight is now
pinned, and this can be annoying.
• 2... d5 makes a grab for the centre, allowing White
to inflict the doubled pawns. If White does so, Black
will try to show that his pair of bishops is valu-
able, and that White has wasted time by moving
his bishop twice in order to trade it off. Black usu-
ally recaptures away from the center with 3...exf6,
preserving a defensible pawn structure and opening
diagonals for the queen and dark-squared bishop,
however 3...gxf6 (played by Sergey Karjakin against
Magnus Carlsen in the opening game of the 2016
World Chess Championship) is also common. Al-
ternatively, White can transpose into the Richter-
Veresov Attack with 3.Nc3 or the Tartakower Vari-
ation of the Torre Attack with 3.Nf3.
8.3. KING’S INDIAN DEFENCE 167

• 2... c5 also makes a grab for the centre, planning
to trade off the c-pawn for White’s d-pawn. Again,
White can inflict doubled pawns, and again Black
will try to make use of his bishop pair.
• 2... g6 is another line, practically begging White
to inflict the doubled pawns. Black’s development
is slightly slower than in the two lines previously
mentioned. Black is intending to fianchetto his
dark-squared bishop which is unopposed by a White
counterpart, and will try to prove that this is more
important than the doubled pawn weakness.
• 2... c6 is an offbeat line in which Black intends
...Qb6, forcing White to defend or sacrifice his b-
pawn. White can play the thematic 3. Bxf6 or
3. Nf3, but must avoid 3. e3?? Qa5+, when
White resigned (in light of 4...Qxg5) in Djordjević
vs. Kovačević, Bela Crkva 1984—"the shortest ever
loss by a master” (Graham Burgess, The Quickest
Chess Victories of All Time, p. 33).
• Gallagher, Joe (1998), The Trompovsky, Chess
Press, ISBN 1-901259-09-9
• Wells, Peter (2004). Winning With the Trompowsky.
Sterling. ISBN 978-0713487954.
• Davies, Nigel (2005). The Trompowsky. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 1857443764.
• Palliser, Richard (2009). Starting Out: the
Trompowsky Attack. Everyman Chess. ISBN
9781857445626.
• Pert, Richard (2013). Playing the Trompowsky.
Quality Chess. ISBN 9781907982767.
• Lakdawala, Cyrus (2014). The Trompowsky At-
tack: Move by Move. Everyman Chess. ISBN
9781781941775.
• Edward Winter’s “The Trompowsky Opening”
(Chess Notes Feature Article)

8.2.7 External links

8.2.2 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5
White can also play 2. Bg5 after 1. d4 d5. This is known
as the Pseudo-Trompowsky, Hodgson Attack, Levitsky
Attack, Queen’s Bishop Attack, and Bishop Attack,
and is covered in ECO code D00. Play can transpose to
the Trompowsky if Black plays 2...Nf6.
8.2.3 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
8.2.4 Notes
[1] Trompowsky Attack
[2] “Igor Miladinovic vs Michael Adams, Moscow olm 62/53
1994, Trompowsky Attack: Raptor Variation (A45)".
ChessGames.com. Retrieved 2009-10-26.
• 22,360 Games at Chess.com
8.3 King’s Indian Defence
The King’s Indian Defence is a common chess opening.
It arises after the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
Black intends to follow up with 3...Bg7 and 4...d6. The
Grünfeld Defence arises when Black plays 3...d5 instead,
and is considered a separate opening. White’s major third
move options are 3.Nc3, 3.Nf3 or 3.g3, with both the
King’s Indian and Grünfeld playable against these moves.
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) classifies
the King’s Indian Defence under the codes E60 through
E99.

8.2.5 References 8.3.1 Overview

• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox- The King’s Indian is a hypermodern opening, where
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN Black deliberately allows White control of the centre with
0-19-280049-3. his pawns, with the view to subsequently challenge it with
the moves ...e5 or ...c5. Until the mid-1930s, it was gen-
erally regarded as highly suspect, but the analysis and play
8.2.6 Further reading of three strong Soviet players in particular—Alexander
Konstantinopolsky, Isaac Boleslavsky, and David Bron-
• Hodgson, Julian (1997). Secrets of the Trompovsky- stein—helped to make the defence much more respected
Volume 1. Hodgson Enterprises. ISBN and popular. It is a dynamic opening, exceptionally com-
0952937328. plex, and a favourite of former world champions Garry
168
Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, and Mikhail Tal, with promi-
nent grandmasters Viktor Korchnoi, Miguel Najdorf,
Efim Geller, John Nunn, Svetozar Gligorić, Wolfgang
Uhlmann, Ilya Smirin, Teimour Radjabov and Ding Liren
having also contributed much to the theory and practice
of this opening.
8.3.2 Variations
The main variations of the King’s Indian are:
Classical Variation: 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5
Classical Variation. White to move.
The Classical Variation is 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0
6.Be2 e5.
• The Main Line or Mar del Plata Variation con-
tinues 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7. Now White has a wide
variety of moves, including 9.b4, 9.Ne1, and 9.Nd2,
among others. Typically, White will try to attack on
the queenside by preparing the pawn break c4–c5,
while Black will attack on the kingside by transfer-
ring his knight from f6 to d7 (usually better placed
than at e8, as it helps slow White’s queenside play
with c4–c5), and starting a kingside pawn storm with
f7–f5–f4 and g6–g5. 9.b4, introduced by Korchnoi
in the 1970s, used to put top players off playing this
line, but it has recently been revived by Radjabov.
• 7.0-0 Nbd7 is the Old Main Line, and is playable,
though less common nowadays than 7...Nc6.
• 7.0-0 exd4 8.Nxd4 is also possible, although White’s
extra space usually is of greater value than Black’s
counterplay against White’s centre. Made popular
in the mid-1990s by the Russian Grandmaster Igor
Glek, new ideas were found for White yet some of
the best lines for White were later refuted. White
still has an advantage in most lines.
• 7.0-0 Na6 has seen some popularity recently. The
purpose of this awkward-looking move is to move
the knight to c5 after an eventual d5, while guard-
ing c7 if Black should play ...Qe8. Play commonly
continues 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bg5 Qe8! but White has also
tried:
• 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8 Rxd8 with even chances;
• 8.d5 Nc5 9.Qc2 a5 may transpose into the Pet-
rosian System (see below);
• 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 Qe8 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c5!,
which is not totally reliable for Black.
• 7.d5 is the Petrosian System, so named for the
1963–69 world champion, who often essayed the
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
line in the 1960s, with Vladimir Kramnik playing
this variation extensively in the 1990s. The plans
for both sides are roughly the same as in the main
variation. After 7...a5 White plays 8.Bg5 to pin
the knight, making it harder for Black to achieve
the f7–f5 break. In the early days of the sys-
tem, Black would drive the bishop back with ...h6
and ...g5, though players subsequently switched to
ideas involving ...Na6, ...Qe8 and ...Bd7, making
White’s c4–c5 break more difficult, only then play-
ing for kingside activity. Joe Gallagher[1] has rec-
ommended the flexible 7...Na6 which has similar
ideas to 7...a5.
• 7.Be3 is often known as the Gligoric System, after
the World Championship Candidate, who has con-
tributed much to King’s Indian theory and practice
with both colours. Recently, other strong players
such as Korchnoi, Anatoly Karpov, and Kasparov
have played this line. The main idea behind this
move is to avoid the theoretical lines that arise af-
ter 7.0-0 Nc6. This move allows White to maintain,
for the moment, the tension in the centre. If Black
plays mechanically with 7...Nc6, 8.d5 Ne7 9.Nd2!
is a favourable setup, so Black most often responds
by crossing his opponent’s plans with 7...Ng4 8.Bg5
f6 9.Bh4 Nc6, but other moves are also seen, such
as:
• 7...Na6 8.0-0 transposing into the modern.
• 7...h6!? is a favourite of John Nunn. The main
line runs 8.0-0 Ng4 9.Bc1 Nc6 10.d5 Ne7
11.Ne1 f5 12.Bxg4 fxg4. In this subvariation,
Black’s kingside play is of a different type than
normal KID lines, as it lacks the standard pawn
breaks, so he will now play g6–g5 and Ng6–f4,
often investing material in a piece attack in the
f-file against the white king, while White plays
for the usual queenside breakthrough with c4–
c5.
• 7...exd4 immediately surrenders the centre,
with a view to playing a quick c7–c6 and d6–
d5. For example, 8.Nxd4 Re8 9.f3 c6 10.Qd2
(10.Bf2!?) 10...d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.0-0 Nc6
13.c5 and 13...Rxe3!? (which was first seen
in game 11 of the 1990 World Chess Champi-
onship between Kasparov and Karpov).
• In the Exchange Variation (7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8
Rxd8), White exchanges queens and is content to
play for a small, safe advantage in the relatively quiet
positions which will ensue in this queenless mid-
dlegame. The line is often played by White play-
ers hoping for an early draw, but there is still a lot
of play left in the position. White tries to exploit
d6 with moves such as b4, c5, Nf3–d2–c4–d6, etc.,
while Black will play to control the hole on d4. In
practice, it is easier to exploit d4, and chances are
8.3. KING’S INDIAN DEFENCE
balanced. If Black is able to play ...Nd4, he will of- White’s castled position. If instead White plays more cau-
ten have at least an equal position, even when this tiously, then Black challenges White’s centre with ...e5.
involves the sacrifice of a pawn to eliminate White’s
dark-squared bishop.
Averbakh Variation: 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5
Sämisch Variation: 5.f3
Main article: King’s Indian Defence, Sämisch Variation
The Sämisch Variation is 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3. It is
named after Friedrich Sämisch, who developed the sys-
tem in the 1920s. This often leads to very sharp play
with the players castling on opposite wings and attacking
each other’s kings, as in the Bagirov–Gufeld game given
below, though it may also give rise to heavyweight posi-
tional struggles. Black has a variety of pawn breaks, such
as ...e5, ...c5 and ...b5 (prepared by ...c6 and/or ...a6).
This can transpose to the Modern Benoni after 5...0-0
6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 e6. World champions Mikhail Botvinnik,
Mikhail Tal, Tigran Petrosian, Boris Spassky, Anatoly
Karpov and Garry Kasparov have all played this variation.
This line defends the e4 pawn to create a secure centre
and enables White to begin an attack kingside with Be3,
Qd2, Bh6, g2–g4 and h2–h4. It allows placement of a
bishop on e3 without allowing ...Ng4; however, its draw-
back is that it deprives the knight on g1 of its most nat-
ural square, thus impeding development of the kingside.
Black can strike for the centre as previously mentioned or
delay with 6...Nc6, 7...a6 and 8...Rb8 so that Black can
play ...b7–b5 to open lines on the queenside.
The Sämisch Gambit. Black has sacrificed a pawn for
temporary advantages.
The Classical Defence to the Sämisch is 5...0-0 6.Be3 e5,
when White has a choice between closing the centre with
7.d5, or maintaining the tension with 7.Nge2. Kasparov
was a major proponent of this defence.[2]
The Sämisch Gambit arises after 5...0-0 6.Be3 c5. This
is a pawn sacrifice, and was once considered dubious.
As Black’s play has been worked out, this evaluation has
changed, and the gambit now enjoys a good reputation. A
practical drawback, however, is that a well-prepared but
unambitious White player can often enter lines leading to
a forced draw.[2] The line where White accepts the gam-
bit runs 5...0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8 (8.e5 Nfd7
9.f4 f6 10.exf6 is also possible here, though less often
seen) Rxd8 9.Bxc5 Nc6. Black’s activity is believed to
give sufficient compensation. White’s most frequent play
is to decline the gambit, and instead play 7.Nge2, and
head for Benoni type positions after a d4–d5 advance.
5...0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 leads to the
Panno Variation of the Sämisch. Black prepares to
respond appropriately depending on White’s choice of
plan. If White plays 0-0-0 and goes for a kingside attack,
then 7...a6 prepares ...b7–b5 with a counterattack against
169
The Averbakh Variation is 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-
0 6.Bg5 (named for Yuri Averbakh), which prevents the
immediate 6...e5. Black usually repels the bishop with
...h6 giving him the option of a later g5, though in prac-
tice this is a weakening move. White has various ways
to develop, such as Qd2, Nf3, f4 or even h4. However,
Black obtains good play against all of these development
schemes. The old main line in this begins with 6...c5,
though 6...Nbd7 and 6...Na6 (Judit Polgár's move) are
also seen.
Four Pawns Attack
Four Pawns Attack: 5.f4
Main article: King’s Indian Defence, Four Pawns Attack
The Four Pawns Attack continues with 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4
d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3. This is the most aggressive method
for White, and was often seen in the 1920s. With his
fifth move, White erects a massive centre at the price of
falling behind in development. If Black can open the po-
sition, White may well find himself overextended. From
this 6...c5 is the main line.
• 6...c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5
• 9...Bg4 has been a solid line for Black.
• 9...Re8 can be justified with solid play.
• 9...b5 is known to lead to sharp, dangerous
play.
• 6...Na6 is known as the Modern Variation. This is
a move anticipating playing ...Nc5 with counterplay.
Has worked with success of neutral moves made
from White, such as 7.Bd3. On the other hand, 7.e5
is the most aggressive plan.
Fianchetto Variation
Fianchetto Variation: 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3
The Fianchetto Variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7
4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0, is named for White’s devel-
opment of his light squared bishop to g2, and is one
of the most popular lines at the grandmaster level, with
Korchnoi once its most notable practitioner. This method
of development is on completely different lines than other
King’s Indian variations. Here, Black’s normal plan of
170
attack can hardly succeed, as White’s kingside is more
solidly defended than in most KID variations. The most
common responses are:
• 6...Nbd7 with 8...exd4. Black intends to claim the
centre with ...e7–e5. 7.Nc3 e5 8.e4 exd4 9.Nxd4
Re8 10.h3 a6. Preparation has been made for
11...Rb8, with ...c7–c5 and ...b7–b5, and sometimes
with ...Ne5 first. This is known as the Gallagher
Variation of the Fianchetto Variation.
• 8...c6 and 8...a6 are alternatives.
• 6...Nc6 7.Nc3 a6 8.d5 Na5. This variation goes
against ancient dogma which states that knights are
not well placed on the rim; however, extra pres-
sure is brought to bear against the Achilles Heel
of the fianchetto lines—the weakness at c4. Hun-
dreds of master games have continued with 9.Nd2
c5 10.Qc2 Rb8 11.b3 b5 12.Bb2 bxc4 13.bxc4
Bh6 14.f4 (14.e3 Bf5 is a trap that numbers Mark
Taimanov among its victims;[3] white must now lose
material, as he has no good interposition) e5!
8.3.3 Sidelines
Finally, White has other setups, such as Nf3 and h3 and
Nge2 (with or without Bd3), but these are currently not
as popular at the grandmaster level. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6
3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 followed by 6.Ng3 is called
the Hungarian Attack.
8.3.4 Famous games
The moves are shown for one of the most famous
King’s Indian games, a brilliancy by the late Ukrainian-
American grandmaster Eduard Gufeld, who called it his
"Mona Lisa":
Vladimir Bagirov–Eduard Gufeld, USSR
championship 1973
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Nf6 5.f3 0-0
6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Rb8 8.Qd2 a6 9.Bh6 b5
10.h4 e5 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.h5 Kh8 13.Nd5
bxc4 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.Qh6 Nh5 16.g4 Rxb2
17.gxh5 g5 18.Rg1 g4 19.0-0-0 Rxa2 20.Nef4
exf4 21.Nxf4 Rxf4 22.Qxf4 c3 23.Bc4 Ra3
24.fxg4 Nb4 25.Kb1 Be6 26.Bxe6 Nd3
27.Qf7 Qb8+ 28.Bb3 Rxb3+ 29.Kc2 Nb4+
30.Kxb3 Nd5+ 31.Kc2 Qb2+ 32.Kd3 Qb5+
0–1
8.3.5 ECO codes
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) classifica-
tion of variations of the King’s Indian are:
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
• E60 King’s Indian Defence
• E61 King’s Indian Defence, 3.Nc3
• E62 King’s Indian, Fianchetto Variation
• E63 King’s Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation
• E64 King’s Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav system
• E65 King’s Indian, Yugoslav, 7.0-0
• E66 King’s Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav Panno
• E67 King’s Indian, Fianchetto with ...Nbd7
• E68 King’s Indian, Fianchetto, Classical Variation,
8.e4
• E69 King’s Indian, Fianchetto, Classical Main line
• E70 King’s Indian, 4.e4
• E71 King’s Indian, Makogonov system (5.h3)
• E72 King’s Indian with e4 & g3
• E73 King’s Indian, 5.Be2
• E74 King’s Indian, Averbakh, 6...c5
• E75 King’s Indian, Averbakh, Main line
• E76 King’s Indian, Four Pawns Attack
• E77 King’s Indian, Four Pawns Attack, 6.Be2
• E78 King’s Indian, Four Pawns Attack, with Be2 and
Nf3
• E79 King’s Indian, Four Pawns Attack, Main line
• E80 King’s Indian, Sämisch Variation
• E81 King’s Indian, Sämisch, 5...0-0
• E82 King’s Indian, Sämisch, 6...b6
• E83 King’s Indian, Sämisch, 6...Nc6
• E84 King’s Indian, Sämisch, Panno Main line
• E85 King’s Indian, Sämisch, Orthodox Variation
• E86 King’s Indian, Sämisch, Orthodox, 7.Nge2 c6
• E87 King’s Indian, Sämisch, Orthodox, 7.d5
• E88 King’s Indian, Sämisch, Orthodox, 7.d5 c6
• E89 King’s Indian, Sämisch, Orthodox Main line
• E90 King’s Indian, 5.Nf3
• E91 King’s Indian, Kazakh variation, 6.Be2
• E92 King’s Indian, Classical Variation
• E93 King’s Indian, Petrosian system, Main line
8.4. KING’S INDIAN DEFENCE, FOUR PAWNS ATTACK 171

• E94 King’s Indian, Orthodox Variation
• E95 King’s Indian, Orthodox, 7...Nbd7, 8.Re1
• E96 King’s Indian, Orthodox, 7...Nbd7, Main line
• E97 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin–Taimanov
Variation (Yugoslav Attack / Mar del Plata Varia-
tion)
• E98 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin–Taimanov,
9.Ne1
• Markoš, Ján (2008). Beat the KID. Quality Chess.
ISBN 978-1-906552-15-2.
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270-
3.
• Panczyk, Krzysztof; Ilczuk, Jacek (2009). The Clas-
sical King’s Indian Uncovered. Everyman Chess.
ISBN 1857445171.

• E99 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin–Taimanov,

Main
8.3.8 External links

8.3.6 References • Chess Siberia: King’s Indian Defence. Saemisch

System
[1] Gallagher, Joe (2004). Play the King’s Indian. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-324-0. • Vladimir Bagirov–Eduard Gufeld, USSR champi-
onship 1973 “The Mona Lisa” at chessgames.com
[2] Cherniaev, Alexander; Prokuronov, Eduard (February 12,
2008). The Sämisch King’s Indian Uncovered. Everyman
Chess.

[3] http://www.365chess.com/view_game.php?g=2427799
8.4 King’s Indian Defence, Four
Pawns Attack
8.3.7 Further reading The Four Pawns Attack in the King’s Indian Defence is
a chess opening that begins with the moves:
• Burgess, Graham (1993). The King’s Indian for the
Attacking Player. Batsford. ISBN 0805029362.
1. d4 Nf6
• Nesis, Gennady; Shulman, Leonid (1993). Tactics
in the King’s Indian. Translated by Gesthuysen, Mal- 2. c4 g6
colm. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 9780805026399. 3. Nc3 Bg7
• Gallagher, Joe (1995). The Samisch King’s Indian. 4. e4 d6
Henry Holt. ISBN 0805039023.
5. f4
• Petursson, Margeir (1996). King’s Indian De-
fense: Averbakh Variation. Cadogan Books. ISBN White immediately builds up a large pawn centre in or-
9781857441185. der to gain a spatial advantage. Black first develops his
pieces, then tries to attack White’s centre by means of the
• Gligorić, Svetozar (2003). King’s Indian Defence
pawn advances ...e7–e5, ...c7–c5 or ...f7–f5, depending
– Mar Del Plata Variation. Batsford. ISBN 978-
on circumstances.
0713487671.
The main variations of the Four Pawns Attack are:
• Panczyk, Krzysztof; Ilczuk, Jacek (2004). Off-
beat King’s Indian. Everyman Chess. ISBN
9781857443615. • The main line 5...0-0 6.Nf3 c5, when after 7.d5
Black can attack White’s centre with the pawn
• Ward, Chris (2004). The Controversial Samisch sacrifice 7...b5 or the quieter 7...e6. The latter can
King’s Indian. Batsford. ISBN 9780713488722. transpose into the Modern Benoni.

• Golubev, Mikhail (2006). Understanding the King’s • The modern alternative 5...0-0 6.Nf3 Na6!? aims at
Indian. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-31- sacrificing a pawn with 7...e5 and going into tactical
X. complications.
• Cherniaev, Alexander (2008). The Samisch King’s
Indian Uncovered. Everyman Chess. ISBN The relevant Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings codes are
1857445406. E76 through E79.
172
8.4.1 The main line
After 6...c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5
The main line of the Four Pawns Attack after 6...c5 7.d5
continuing 7...e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 now gives Black a
choice of the old main line with 9...Re8 or the new main
line with 9...Bg4.
Old main line with 9...Re8
Highly tactical possibilities abound in which the critical between this move and Nbd7 is that Na6 does not block
position occurs after 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4 12.Bg5, the queenside bishop.[8]
a position which is perhaps better avoided by Black.[1]
After 12...Qb6 13.0-0 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Qd2 Bf5
white was not able to achieve any significant advantage.
New main line with 9...Bg4
A common-sense move with the idea of exchanging the
bishop for the knight and taking the energy out of White’s
e5 attacking plan.[2] The development of the bishop also
frees Black’s queenside for smooth development and ac-
tive play.[2] Invariably, development continues with 10.0-
0 Nbd7 when White faces the possibly of kicking the
bishop with h3 or delaying with Re1 first.[3] In the game
Jesus Nogueiras–Garry Kasparov, White opted for the
immediate kick, 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Re8 in a game that
was eventually drawn.[4]
White varies on move 7, 8 or 9
• White can vary with 7.dxc5 or 7.Be2; this allows
Black to equalize with accurate play.
• Of the various alternatives at move eight, 8.dxe6
opening the d5-square has gained interest.[5] The re-
ply 8...Bxe6 leaves White a possible f5 push at an
appropriate moment, so normally 8...fxe6 is played
when White has a choice of the solid 9.Be2 or the
aggressive 9.Bd3.[5]
• 9.exd5. Although once common, the f4-pawn looks
out of place and White’s weakness on e4 is clear.[6]
White varying with 9.e5 has a certain logic to
quicken the centre play, however the reply 9...Ne4
seems to adequately halt the plan.[6]
The sacrifice 7...b5
Having similar ideas to the Benko Gambit, this b5 push
remains uncharted.[7] After 8.cxb5 (8.e5 is to be consid-
ered) 8...a6, White has choices between the possibility of
taking the a-pawn, or supporting the pawn on b5.[7] The
more common response is to support with 9.a4.[7]
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
8.4.2 The modern alternative 6...Na6!?
Position after 6...Na6!?
Black first develops one additional piece before reacting
in the centre. The idea is to bring in the push e7–e5 in-
stead of the main line c7–c5. This is a gambit in which
Black hopes to take advantage of the slight underdevel-
opment of White forces in order to win back the sacri-
ficed pawn or to directly attack the white king. The move
...Na6 is designed post on c5 (once the d4-pawn has left)
in order to attack the e4-pawn. An important difference
After the normal 7.Be2, Black must immediately unleash
7...e5!? when White has several possibilities, but only a
capture on e5 is assumed to make sense:
• 8.0-0 is not well considered for White because of
the hidden tactical idea 8...exd4 9.Nxd4 Nc5 10.Bf3
Re8 11.Re1 Bg4! when White cannot win the piece
on g4 without losing the Nd4 (by the Bg7).
• 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 is considered dubious but is
better than its reputation, e.g. 9...c5 10.Be3 cxd4
11.Bxd4 Qe7?! (Gallagher) 12.Nf3! and White is
a full pawn up because Black cannot recapture the
e4-pawn without running into trouble: 12...Nxe4?
13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qd4+ Nf6 15.Nd5 Qd6 16.Ng5!
and White wins.
• 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nxe4 c5 d5 is considered slightly du-
bious due to Nxe4! and Black is fine after Nxe4
Bxe5.
• 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 (9.Qxd8 is considered slightly
inferior because it develops Black’s Rf8) 9...Nc5
10.Bf3 Qxd1+ 11.Kxd1 Rd8+ 12.Kc2 Nfxe4! (a
temporary piece sacrifice, e.g. game Hansen–Berg,
Aarhus 1991) 13.Nxe4 Bf5 14.Re1 Bxe5 15.fxe5
Rd4 (thus Black regains his piece) 16.b3! Nxe4
17.Kb2 Nc5 when White still has a slight advan-
tage thanks to good diagonals for his bishop pair,
but Black controls the d-file and can try to pressure
the e5-pawn.
• 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.fxe5? is bad because Black can gain
back the e5-pawn and leave White with a poor pawn
structure.
8.4.3 Black varies on move 5
Black can also vary with 5...c5, electing to strike at the
White centre before castling and discouraging any 6.e5
ideas from White. Teimour Radjabov, perhaps the lead-
ing contemporary practitioner of the King’s Indian De-
fence, has been known to play this line. If 6.dxc5, Black
can answer with ...Qa5, effectively forking the pawns at
8.5. EAST INDIAN DEFENCE 173

e4 and c5, regaining the material with a stronger centre
and a lead in development. Generally, Black will follow
up with 7...Qxc5, preventing White from castling at least
temporarily and taking control of the sensitive g1–a7 di-
agonal, given that White has moved his f-pawn. If after
6...Qa5 White plays the materialistic 7.cxd6? then Black
has 7...Nxe4 with advantage.
8.4.4 Notes
[1] Crouch 1992, p.6
8.5.1 Description
This opening has a close kinship to the more-common
King’s Indian Defence and is often considered a variant
thereof. The difference is that White has not yet played
c4, and therefore retains some options.
If White plays an early c4, the opening will transpose into
a King’s Indian. It is also possible for White to support
an early e4 advance, transposing into the Pirc Defence.
Unless transposition is reached, there are four popular,
independent continuations:

[2] Crouch 1992, p.13 • 3.g3 (the Przepiórka variation, closely related to the
Fianchetto Variation of the King’s Indian)
[3] Crouch 1992, p.16
• 3.Bg5 (the Torre system, which may be considered
[4] Crouch 1992, p.17
a variant of the Torre Attack)
[5] Crouch 1992, p.24
• 3.Bf4 (the London system)
[6] Crouch 1992, p.22
• 3.Nc3 (the Barry Attack)[2]
[7] Crouch 1992, p.27
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings classifies the East
[8] Crouch 1992, p.33 Indian Defence under A49 for the Przepiórka variation
and A48 for the others.
8.4.5 References
8.5.2 Fianchetto without c4
• Djuric, Stefan; Komarov, Dmitry; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 is the King’s Indian, Fianchetto
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270- without c4. This can also be reached by 1.Nf3 lines.
3. Black almost always plays 3...Bg7. White can play 4.c4
or 4.Bg2.
• Golubev, Mikhail (2006). Understanding the King’s
Indian. Gambit. After 4.Bg2, Black can play ...0-0, ...d5, or ...d6. 4...d5
gives the Neo-Grunfeld Defence with 5.c4 or 5.0-0 0-0
• Konikowski, Jerzy; Soszynski, Marek (2005). The 6.c4. 4...d6 is the same as 4...0-0 with 5.c4 0-0 or 5.0-0
fearsome four pawns attack. Russell Enterprises. 0-0.
• de Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings: After 4...0-0, White can play 5.c4 or 5.0-0.
MCO-14. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3. With move 5.0-0, Black can play ...d6 or ...d5. 5...d5
gives the Neo-Grunfeld Defence after 6.c4.
• Gallagher, Joe (1996). Beating the anti-King’s In-
dian. Batsford. (only presents the 6...Na6!? line) With move 5...d6, White will usually play 6.c4 for the
Fianchetto Variation, but other moves are possible.
• Burgess, Graham (1993). The King’s Indian for the
Attacking Player. Batsford.
8.5.3 Example game
• Crouch, Colin (1992). Trends in the King’s Indian
Four Pawns Attack. Trends Publications. Smyslov vs Sax, 1979

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0

8.5 East Indian Defence 5.d4 d6 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.e4 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5
9.b3 b6 10.a4 Bb7 11.Nd2 Re8 12.Ba3
The East Indian Defence is a chess opening charac- Bf8 13.Bxf8 Nxf8 14.Nc4 Ne6 15.Re1 Qd4
terised by the moves: 16.Nd5 Kg7 17.Qf3 Bxd5 18.exd5 e4 19.Qd1
Nxd5 20.Bxe4 Rad8 21.Bxd5 Qxd5 22.Qxd5
Rxd5 23.Rad1 Red8 24.Rxd5 Rxd5 25.Kg2
1. d4 Nf6 Kf6 26.Ne3 Rd2 27.Ng4 Ke7 28.Ne3 Kd7
2. Nf3 g6[1] 29.Rd1 Rxd1 30.Nxd1 Nd4 31.Ne3 Kd6 32.h4
174 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

Kc5 33.Kf1 Kb4 34.Ke1 Kc3 35.Kd1 c6 and White mates in three (19.Nh6+ double check Kh8
36.Kc1 Nf3 37.Nc4 f5 38.Nb2 f4 39.Nc4 20.Qg8+ Rxg8 21.Nf7#).[1][2] Cochrane published a
Nd4 40.Ne5 fxg3 41.fxg3 c5 42.a5 Nxc2 book reporting his games with Moheshchunder and other
43.axb6 axb6 44.Nd7 Nd4 45.Nxb6 Ne2 Indians in 1864.
46.Kd1 Nxg3 47.Nd7 Kb4 48.Kc2 Nf5 49.Nf8 It gained popularity after Ernst Grünfeld introduced it
Nxh4 50.Nxh7 Nf5 51.Nf6 Nd4 52.Kd3 Kxb3 into international play at Vienna 1922, where, in his first
53.Nd7 Ne6 54.Ne5 g5 0-1 game with the defense, he defeated future world cham-
pion Alexander Alekhine.[3] Grünfeld usually employed
a very classical style. The defence was later adopted
8.5.4 References by a number of prominent players, including Vasily
Smyslov, Viktor Korchnoi, Leonid Stein, and Bobby Fis-
[1] World Correspondence Chess Federation, http://www.
cher. Garry Kasparov often used the defence, includ-
ewccf.com/eco.htm
ing in his World Championship matches against Anatoly
[2] Kenilworth Chess Club, http://www. Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990, and Vladimir Kram-
kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2005/11/ nik in 2000. Currently active notable players who em-
barry-attack-bibliography.html ploy the opening include Loek van Wely, Peter Svidler,
Peter Leko, Viswanathan Anand, Luke McShane and
Gata Kamsky.[4] Anand employed it twice in the World
Chess Championship 2010. In the World Chess Cham-
8.6 Grünfeld Defence pionship 2012 between Anand and Boris Gelfand, each
player used the Grünfeld once with both games ending in
The Grünfeld Defence (ECO codes D70–D99) is a chess draws. Anand faced the Grunfeld against Magnus Carlsen
opening characterised by the moves: during the first game of the World Chess Championship
2014 and drew in a Rook and Queen ending.
1. d4 Nf6 The Game of the Century between Donald Byrne and
2. c4 g6 13-year-old Bobby Fischer on October 17, 1956, fea-
tured this opening, although arriving in the Grünfeld via
3. Nc3 d5 a transposition of moves (using 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3
Bg7 4.d4 0-0 5.Bf4 d5).
Black offers White the possibility of cxd5, when after
Nxd5 White further gets the opportunity to kick the Black
Knight around with e4, leading to an imposing central
8.6.2 Exchange Variation: 4.cxd5 Nxd5
pawn duo for White. If White does not take the d5 pawn, 5.e4
Black may eventually play dxc4, when a White response
of e4 again leads to the same pawn structure. In classi- Exchange Variation
cal opening theory this imposing pawn centre was held
to give White a large advantage, but the hypermodern The main line of the Grünfeld, the Exchange Varia-
school, which was coming to the fore in the 1920s, held tion (ECO codes D85–D89), is defined by the contin-
that a large pawn centre could be a liability rather than
uation 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4. Now White has an im-
an asset. The Grünfeld is therefore a key hypermodern posing looking centre – and the main continuation 5...
opening, showing in stark terms how a large pawn cen- Nxc3 6. bxc3 strengthens it still further. Black gener-
tre can either be a powerful battering ram or a target for
ally attacks White’s centre with ...c5 and ...Bg7, often
attack. followed by moves such as ...Qa5, ...cxd4, ...Bg4, and
...Nc6. White often uses his big centre to launch an at-
tack against Black’s king. One subvariation, frequently
8.6.1 History played by Karpov, including four games of his 1987 world
championship match against Kasparov in Seville, Spain,
The first instance of this opening is in an 1855 game by is the Seville Variation, after 6...Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6
Moheschunder Bannerjee, an Indian player who had tran- 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+, long thought
sitioned from Indian chess rules, playing Black against a poor move by theory, as the resultant light-square weak-
John Cochrane in Calcutta, in May 1855: ness had been believed to give Black more than enough
compensation for the pawn.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the
0-0 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Be2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.0- Exchange Variation. For decades, theory held that the
0 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nc6 11.Bb2 Bg4 12.Rc1 Rc8 correct method of development was with Bc4 and Ne2,
13.Ba3 Qa5 14.Qb3 Rfe8 15.Rc5 Qb6 16.Rb5 often followed by 0-0 and f4–f5, playing for a central
Qd8 17.Ng5 Bxe2 18.Nxf7 Na5 breakthrough or kingside attack. It was generally thought
8.6. GRÜNFELD DEFENCE 175

that an early Nf3 was weak in the Exchange Variation 8.6.4 Taimanov’s Variation with 4.Nf3
because it allowed Black too much pressure on the centre Bg7 5.Bg5
with ...Bg4. In the late 1970s, however, Karpov, Kas-
parov and others found different methods to play the Ex- Taimanov 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5
change Variation with White, often involving an early
Rb1 to remove the rook from the sensitive a1–h8 diag-
In this line, favoured by Yasser Seirawan, after the nearly
onal, as well as attempting to hinder the development
universal 5...Ne4, White may play 6.Bh4 Nxc3 7.bxc3
of Black’s queenside. Another, relatively recently devel-
or 6.cxd5, with Black then opting for either 6...Nxc3
oped system involves quickly playing Be3, Qd2, and Rc1
7.bxc3 Qxd5 or 6...Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6, though in the latter
or Rd1 to fortify White’s centre, remove White’s rook
case, 7...c6 is sometimes tried. If 6. Nxd5 grabbing the
from the diagonal, and possibly enable an early d5 push
by White. pawn, ...e6 loses a piece. After 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6,
White has 8.Qd2 exd5 9.Qe3+, with attacking chances,
Vladimir Kramnik and Boris Gelfand are the leading or the more usual 8.Nf3 exd5 (though the interpolation
practitioners as White, and Ľubomír Ftáčnik has had 8...h6 9.Nf3 exd5 is a significant alternative), after which
many fine results with the black pieces.[4] play generally proceeds on lines analogous to the Queen’s
Gambit Declined, Exchange Variation, with a queenside
minority attack by White (b2–b4–b5xc6), as Black aims
8.6.3 Russian System: 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 for his traditional kingside play with ...f7–f5–f4 and, in
this case, ...g6–g5.
Russian System 5.Qb3

In bringing more pressure to bear against Black’s cen-

8.6.5 Lines with 4.Bf4 and the Grünfeld
tral outpost on d5, White practically forces ...dxc4, thus Gambit
gaining a central preponderance; however, in return, his
queen will often be exposed as Black’s queenside play un- 4.Bf4
folds in the middlegame. After 5... dxc4 6. Qxc4 0-0 7.
e4, Black has several primary options: For players who do not wish to take on the complexities
of the Exchange Variation, the move 4. Bf4 is generally
considered a safer continuation for White.[6] White opts
Hungarian Variation: 7...a6 for the initiative on the queenside with a smaller pawn
center. In the main line (D82), play proceeds with 4...Bg7
The Hungarian Variation, 7...a6, has been championed by 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5, with White’s choices at his seventh
Peter Leko. move being cxd5, Qb3, Qa4, or Rc1. Despite its repu-
tation, in statistical databases this variation shows only a
slightly higher percentage of White wins and draws, as
Smyslov Variation: 7...Bg4 8.Be3 Nfd7 opposed to the Exchange variation.[7][8] The variation is
not often met in top-flight play today, its usage having
7...Bg4 8.Be3 Nfd7 was a topical line from the 1950s declined significantly since its heyday in the 1930s.
through the mid-1970s. Grünfeld Gambit

Prins Variation: 7...Na6 In this variation, play may also continue 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3
0-0, which is known as the Grünfeld Gambit (ECO code
7...Na6 (Lodewijk Prins') idea, which Kasparov favoured D83). White can accept the gambit by playing 6.cxd5
in several of his World Championship matches against Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Bxc7, or decline it with 6.Qb3 or
Karpov.[5] 6.Rc1, to which Black responds with 6...c5.

7...Nc6 8.6.6 Neo-Grünfeld Defence

This is recommended as the mainline by several recent Neo-Grünfeld Defence, Kemeri Variation
Grünfeld texts.
Systems in which White delays the development of his
queen’s knight to c3 are known as the Neo-Grünfeld De-
Other lines fence (ECO code D70–D79); typical move orders are
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 d5 or, more commonly, 1. d4
7...c6, 7...b6 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 (the latter is known as the Kemeri
176 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

Variation, shown in the diagram). [6] De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN 0-8129-
3084-3.
8.6.7 Illustrative game
[7] “Chessgames – Exchange variation”. Retrieved 2007-04-
30.
Smyslov vs. Fischer, Herceg Novi Blitz Tournament,
1970:[9] [8] “Chessgames – 4.Bf4”. Retrieved 2007-04-30.

[9] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1.c4 g6 2.g3 Bg7 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 0-0 5.0- 1044694
0 c6 6.d4 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qb3
Nc6 10.Be3 Na5 11.Qd1 Nxc3 12.bxc3 b6
13.Ne5 Ba6 14.Re1 Rc8 15.Bd2 e6 16.e4 Bb7 8.6.11 Further reading
17.exd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Qxd5 19.Qe2 Rfd8
20.Ng4 Nc4 21.Bh6 f5 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.Ne3 • András Adorján; Jeno Dory, Winning With the
Nxe3 24.Qxe3 Rc6 25.Rac1 Rdc8 26.c4 Rxc4 Grunfeld (Macmillan, 1987)
27.Rxc4 Rxc4 28.Qxe6 Qxe6 29.Rxe6 Kf7
• Alexey Suetin, The Complete Grünfeld (Batsford,
30.Re3 Rxd4 31.Ra3 a5 32.Rc3 Ke6 33.Kg2
1991)
Kd6 34.h4 Ra4 35.Rc2 b5 36.Kf3 b4 37.Ke3
Kd5 38.f3 Ra3+ 39.Kf4 a4 40.g4 fxg4 41.fxg4 • Anatoly Karpov, Beating the Grünfeld (Batsford,
b3 42.axb3 axb3 43.Rc7 Ra4+ 44.Kg5 Rb4 1992)
45.Rc1 Kd4 46.Kh6 Rb7 0–1
• Jonathan Rowson, Understanding the Grünfeld
(Gambit, 1998)
8.6.8 Other variations • Jacob Aagaard, Starting Out: The Grunfeld (Every-
man Chess, 2000)
Apart from the above, among the more popular continu-
ations are: • Nigel Davies, The Grünfeld Defence (Everyman
Chess, 2002)
• 4.Bg5 (Taimanov Variation) ECO D80
• Bogdan Lalić, The Grunfeld for the Attacking Player
• 4.Qb3 (Accelerated Russian System) ECO D81 (Batsford, 2002)

• 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qa4+ (Flohr Variation) ECO D90 • Michael Khodarkovsky, The Grünfeld Defence Re-
vealed (Batsford, 2003)
• 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 (Quiet System or Slow System)
ECO D94 • Dearing, Edward (2005). Challenging the Grunfeld.
Quality Chess. ISBN 978-91-975243-4-6.
• 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4 (Nadanian Variation) ECO D85
• Konstantin Sakaev, An Expert’s Guide to the 7.Bc4
Gruenfeld (Chess Stars, 2006)
8.6.9 See also • Yelena Dembo, Play the Grünfeld (Everyman Chess,
2007)
• List of chess openings
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
• List of chess openings named after people
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270-
8.6.10 References 3.
• Delchev, Aleksander; Agrest, Evgenij (2011). The
[1] Edward Winter, Kings, Commoners and Knaves: Further
Safest Grünfeld. Chess Stars. ISBN 978-954-8782-
Chess Explorations, Russell Enterprises, Inc., 1999, p.
141. ISBN 1-888690-04-6.
81-4.

[2] Cochrane–Moheschunder
8.6.12 External links
[3] William Hartston, The Grünfeld Defence, Chess Digest,
1971, p. 125. • Online Guide to the Grünfeld
[4] “Chessgames.com – Searchable database”. Retrieved • Chessgames: Grünfeld Gambit
2007-04-30.
• Chessgames: Neo-Grünfeld 3.f3
[5] http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/24th-july-1999/
50/chess • Chessgames: Neo-Grünfeld 3.g3
8.7. GRÜNFELD DEFENCE, NADANIAN VARIATION 177

8.7 Grünfeld Defence, Nadanian Nadanian,[4] the position after the fifth move is an excep-
tion to the rules. By placing the knight on а4, White takes
Variation under control the critical square c5, and by next move
6.e4 will return a tempo back, as Black too will play an
The Nadanian Variation (sometimes called the Nada- already developed piece (knight on d5).
nian Attack) of the Grünfeld Defence is a chess opening
characterised by the moves: White should aspire to the following arrangement: e4,
Be3, Be2, Nf3, 0-0, Rc1, Nc5. Black in turn should not
allow this scheme for what it is necessary for them to put
1. d4 Nf6 pressure on the d4 pawn.[5]
2. c4 g6 The main line continues 5...Bg7 6.e4 Nb6 (Avrukh’s
3. Nc3 d5 6...Nb4 is also interesting) 7.Be3 0-0 8.Nf3 Bg4 (instead
4. cxd5 Nxd5 8...Nxa4 9.Qxa4 c5 10.Rd1 Qb6 11.Rd2 was good for
White in Korchnoi–Sutovsky, Dresden 1998) 9.Be2 Nc6
5. Na4 10.d5 Ne5 11.Nxe5 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Nxa4 with approxi-
mately equal chances.
The Nadanian Variation is classified in the Encyclopaedia
Another possible line is 5...e5 6.dxe5 Nc6 (suggested by
of Chess Openings (ECO) with the code D85.[1]
Igor Zaitsev and first played by Mikhalchishin), which
is according to Lubomir Kavalek “perhaps the only
8.7.1 History way to punish the white knight’s venture to the edge
of the board”.[6] After 7.a3 (Nadanian’s idea) 7...Bf5
The variation is named after the Armenian International 8.Nf3 Qd7 9.e3 0-0-0 10.Be2 (Eingorn gives 10.Bb5
Master Ashot Nadanian, who first employed it in 1996. Qe6) 10...Qe7 11.Qb3 Bg7 according to Yelena Dembo
His analysis was published in the 67th volume of Chess Black has
[7]
a powerful initiative (Kantsler–Avrukh, Israel
Informant. 1999).

The birth of the variation has caused major ripples in the

chess world. One of the world’s most authoritative chess 8.7.3 Use
editions New in Chess Yearbook printed on the front cover
of the 45th volume the following: “A Revolution in the The variation’s most devoted practitioner has been its
Gruenfeld: 5.Na4!?!".[2] Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson eponym, Ashot Nadanian. Various famous players
wrote in his book Understanding the Grünfeld that Nada- such as Swiss Grandmaster Viktor Korchnoi, Chinese
nian “should be congratulated for seeing what everyone Super-grandmaster Bu Xiangzhi, American GM Walter
has seen, and thinking what nobody had thought”.[3] Browne, Scottish GM Jonathan Rowson, Russian GM
The famous chess theoretician, Grandmaster Igor Zaitsev Andrei Kharlov, Israeli GM Vitali Golod and Croatian
in 64 Russian chess magazine wrote: GM Bogdan Lalić have employed it at some time or an-
other, though few have made it their main line against the
The continuation 5.Nа4 of Armenian chess Grünfeld Defence.
player Nadanian shakes by the extraordinari-
ness. Yes, extraordinariness, because it is un-
usual among the unusual. A voluntary removal 8.7.4 Example games
of the knight from the centre, yet that has gone
on advantage? Therefore, the value of such • Ashot Nadanian (2375) – Yannick Pelletier (2470),
centrifugal maneuver is beyond a simple the- Cannes op 18th 1997; D90
oretical novelty, in a certain measure it is a 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4 Bg7
challenge to chess foundations, an attempt to 6.Nf3 0-0 7.e4 Nb6 8.Be2 Nxa4 9.Qxa4 b6 10.Be3
grope new properties in two-dimensional chess Bb7 11.Qc2 Nd7 12.Rd1 e6 13.0-0 h6 14.Bb5 c6
space. [4] 15.Bxc6 Rc8 16.d5 Nb8 17.Qc1 exd5 18.exd5 Nxc6
19.dxc6 Qf6 20.Bxh6 Bxc6 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Qg5
Bxf3 23.Qxf6+ Kxf6 24.gxf3 Rc2 ½–½
8.7.2 Theory
• Viktor Korchnoi (2625) – Emil Sutovsky (2595),
White’s fifth move is overprotecting the key c5-square in Dresden zt 1.2 1998; D85
the Grünfeld Defence, thus aspires to prevent an attack on 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4
the pawn centre by c7–c5. The extravagancy of White’s Bg7 6.e4 Nb6 7.Be3 0-0 8.Nf3 Nxa4 9.Qxa4 c5
idea is that they break at once two opening principles: 10.Rd1 Qb6 11.Rd2 Bd7 12.Qa3 cxd4 13.Nxd4
avoid moving the same piece twice, and avoid placing a Qc7 14.Be2 e5 15.Rc2 Qd8 16.Nb5 Nc6 17.Nd6
knight on the edge of the board. However, according to Qb8 18.Bc4 Nd4 19.Bxd4 exd4 20.0-0 Be6 21.Bxe6
178 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

fxe6 22.Rfc1 Be5 23.Rc7 Bxd6 24.Qxd6 Rf7 • List of chess openings named after people
25.Qxe6 1–0
• Smbat Lputian (2598) – Alexei Shirov (2746), 8.7.7 Notes and references
Montecatini Terme 2000; D85
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4 e5 [1] Pope, Jacques N. “Openings classified under ECO D70–
6.dxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Ndb4 8.Bg5 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Be6 D99”. Chess Archaeology. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
10.Nc3 Bg7 11.a3 Nd5 12.e4 Nxc3+ 13.bxc3 Nxe5
[2] “New in Chess Yearbook vol. 45. A Revolution in the
14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Kc2 h6 16.Be3 0-0-0 17.f4 Bg7 Gruenfeld”. Open Library. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
18.Be2 Rhe8 19.Rhe1 Bd7 20.Bf3 Ba4+ 21.Kb2
Bc6 22.e5 Bxf3 23.gxf3 Kd7 24.h4 Ke6 25.h5 Kf5 [3] Rowson 1998, p. 56.
26.Kc2 g5 27.Rg1 gxf4 28.Bxf4 Bxe5 29.Bxh6 Bf6
[4] 64 (chess magazine) 10/1998 (Russian)
30.Rad1 Rxd1 31.Rxd1 Rh8 32.Be3 Rxh5 33.Rd7
Be5 34.Rxf7+ Ke6 35.Rf8 Bd6 36.Ra8 a5 37.a4 b6 [5] Aschot Nadanjan “Die Superprophylaxe 5.Sa4 im Grün-
38.Re8+ Kd5 39.Re4 Rh3 40.Bf4 Rxf3 41.Rd4+ feldinder”, Kaissiber, No. 3, Juli–September 1997, pp.
Kc5 42.Bxd6+ cxd6 43.Kb3 d5 44.Rh4 ½–½ 60–63 (German)

• Bu Xiangzhi (2607) – Krishnan Sasikiran (2657),
Dos Hermanas Internet Chess Club 2005; D85
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4 e5
6.dxe5 Nc6 7.a3 Nxe5 8.e4 Nb6 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8
10.Bg5+ Be7 11.0-0-0+ Ke8 12.Bf4 Bd6 13.Nxb6
axb6 14.Kc2 Bd7 15.Bxe5 Bxe5 16.Nf3 Bf6 17.Bc4
Ba4+ 18.Bb3 Bc6 19.Bd5 Ke7 20.e5 Bg7 21.Bxc6
bxc6 22.Nd4 c5 23.Nc6+ Ke6 24.f4 Ra4 25.g3 b5
26.Rhe1 Rha8 27.Nd8+ Ke7 28.e6 f5 29.Rd7+ 1–0
• Igor Lysyj (2590) – Alexander Morozevich (2762),
TCh–RUS Sochi 2007; D85
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4
Bg7 6.e4 Nb6 7.Be3 0-0 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.Be2 Nxa4 [11] Hansen, Carsten. “Checkpoint” (PDF). ChessCafe.com.
10.Qxa4 c5 11.dxc5 Bxb2 12.Rb1 Bc3+ 13.Nd2
Bxd2+ 14.Bxd2 Bxe2 15.Kxe2 Nc6 16.Be3 Qc7
17.g3 Rad8 18.Rhd1 Qc8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Rd1
Rxd1 21.Qxd1 Qg4+ 22.f3 Qh3 23.Bf2 Qxh2
8.7.8 Further reading
24.Qd7 Kg7 25.Qxb7 Nd4+ 26.Ke3 e5 27.Qe7 Qh5
28.g4 Qh2 29.Kd3 Ne6 30.Be3 Qxa2 31.g5 Qb3+
32.Kd2 Qb2+ 33.Kd3 a5 34.c6 Qb5+ 35.Kd2 a4
36.f4 Qb2+ 37.Kd1 exf4 38.Bc1 Qd4+ 39.Ke1
Qxe4+ 40.Kd1 Qf3+ 41.Ke1 Qc3+ 42.Kd1 f3
43.Bd2 Qa1+ 44.Kc2 f2 0–1
8.7.5 Modified versions
There are also modified versions of Nadanian’s idea.
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.cxd5
Nxd5 6.Na4 – Improved Nadanian[8] or Deferred
Nadanian[9]
• 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.0-0 Nc6 5.d4 cxd4
6.Nxd4 Na5 – Reversed Nadanian[10]
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.f3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5
6.Na4 – Neo-Nadanian[11]
8.7.6 See also
• List of chess openings
[6] Kavalek, Lubomir (2010-01-04). “Chess”. The Washing-
ton Post. Retrieved 11 January 2010.
[7] Dembo 2007, p. 83.
[8] “Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 2”. New in Chess.
Retrieved 2009-06-27.
[9] Flear, Glenn. “Grünfeld”. ChessPublishing.com. Re-
trieved 2009-06-27.
[10] “Yandemirov Valeri defeats Nadanian Ashot in 77
moves”. MasterChessGames.com. Retrieved 2009-06-
27.
Retrieved 2009-06-27.
• New in Chess Yearbook 45. New in Chess. 1997.
ISBN 0-917237-70-6.
• Rowson, Jonathan (1998). Understanding the Grün-
feld. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-901983-09-9.
• Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, Vol. D (3rd ed.).
Chess Informant. 1998. ISBN 86-7297-040-3.
• Nunn, John (1999). Nunn’s Chess Openings.
Everyman. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
• New in Chess, Yearbook 51. New in Chess. 1999.
ISBN 90-5691-054-X.
• Davies, Nigel (2002). The Grünfeld Defence.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-239-3.
• Secrets of Opening Surprises, Vol. 2. New in Chess.
2004. ISBN 90-5691-132-5.
• Eingorn, Viacheslav (2006). Creative Chess Opening
Preparation. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-
58-1.
• Dembo, Yelena (2007). Play the Grünfeld.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-521-3.
8.8. QUEEN’S INDIAN DEFENSE 179

• de Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings 4...Bb7, but 4...Ba6 has since become the topical line. A
(15th ed.). Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129- rarer third option is 4...Bb4+, which aims to exchange the
3682-7. less useful dark-squared bishop, though this line tends to
leave Black with a slightly passive position.
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270- Modern main line: 4...Ba6
3.
White can defend the pawn at c4 with a piece by play-
• Mosconi, Tiziano (2010). Refutation of the Nada-
ing 5.Nbd2, 5.Qa4, 5.Qc2 or 5.Qb3, but these moves
nian Variation of the Grunfeld Defence. Lulu.
all diminish control of d4, making ...c7–c5 an effective
reply for Black; therefore 5. b3 is White’s most com-
8.7.9 External links mon response.[3] However, it weakens the dark squares
slightly, which Black can take advantage of by playing
• Bill Wall’s list of opening variations 5...Bb4+. Now 6.Nbd2? loses material after 6...Bc3
7.Rb1 Bb7 threatening 8...Be4, an opening trap which
• Nadanian Variation at New in Chess has ensnared players such as Kamran Shirazi.[4] White’s
best move is therefore 6. Bd2. However, after 6...Be7
• Article about Nadanian Variation written by GM
7. Bg2 c6 Black is ready to play ...d7–d5, again attacking
Igor Zaitsev (Russian)
the c-pawn. If White plays cxd5 then ...cxd5 is considered
• 118 Games at Chess.com to equalize for Black. Thus White usually plays 8. Bc3
to clear this square, and the main line continues 8...d5
• Refutation of the Nadanian Variation of the Grunfeld 9. Ne5 Nfd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Nd2 0-0 12. 0-0 to
Defence by Tiziano Mosconi at Lulu.com maintain central tension. The effect of Black’s check has
been to lure White’s bishop to c3 where it blocks the c-
file. This, the current main line of the Queen’s Indian, is
8.8 Queen’s Indian Defense considered equal by theory and became a frequent guest
in grandmaster praxis in the 1980s.
The Queen’s Indian Defense[1] (QID) is a chess opening After 5. b3, Black also has several playable alternatives to
defined by the moves: 5...Bb4+, the most common of which is 5...Bb7 6. Bg2
Bb4+ 7. Bd2 a5. When White plays Nc3, Black will
1. d4 Nf6 exchange bishop for knight in order to enhance his control
over the central light squares, and play on the queenside
2. c4 e6
with moves such as ...a5–a4 and ...b5. Other possibilities
3. Nf3 b6 for Black include 5...d5 and 5...b5.
More recently, several grandmasters, including
The opening is a solid defense to the Queen’s Pawn Alexander Beliavsky, Ni Hua, Veselin Topalov, and
Game.[2] 3...b6 increases Black’s control over the cen- Magnus Carlsen, have played 5. Qc2. The idea is to
tral light squares e4 and d5 by preparing to fianchetto the allow Black’s counterthrust ...c5, the main line running
queen’s bishop, with the opening deriving its name from 5...Bb7 6. Bg2 c5. The fashion is for White to sacrifice
this maneuver. As in the other Indian defenses, Black a pawn with 7. d5, gaining active play. This idea has
attempts to control the center with pieces, instead of oc- scored well for White,[5] and new ideas have been crop-
cupying it with pawns in classical style. ping up since 2008.[6] The 5.Qc2 lines had previously
By playing 3.Nf3, White sidesteps the Nimzo-Indian De- scored poorly for White according to Emms.[3]
fense that arises after 3.Nc3 Bb4. The Queen’s Indian
is regarded as the sister opening of the Nimzo-Indian,
since both openings aim to impede White’s efforts to gain Old main line: 4...Bb7
full control of the center by playing e2–e4. Together,
they form one of Black’s most well-respected responses The classical main line of the Queen’s Indian, the most
to 1.d4. frequently played line from the 1950s until 4....Ba6 be-
came popular in the 1980s, usually continues: 5. Bg2
Be7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Qc2 Nxc3 9. Qxc3.
8.8.1 Main line: 4.g3 White has a spatial advantage, but Black has no weak-
nesses and can choose from a variety of ways to create
4. g3 (E15–E19) has long been White’s most popular counterplay, such as 9...c5, 9...f5 or 9...Be4. These lines
line against the Queen’s Indian. It contests the long diag- are well known for their drawish tendencies and 4...Bb7 is
onal by preparing to fianchetto the light-squared bishop. nowadays often employed by Black as a drawing weapon.
The standard response for Black through the 1970s was White has tried various deviations from the main line in
180
an attempt to unbalance the play. These include:
• 8. Bd2, which defends the knight on c3 and threat-
ens a d4–d5 push.
• 7. d5!?, introduced by Arturo Pomar, and rejuve-
nated by Lev Polugaevsky's continuation 7...exd5 8.
Nh4 threatening to regain the pawn on d5 or to play 4.e3
Nf5.
• 6. Nc3, which postpones castling in favor of prepar- side, was also a favorite of Tigran Petrosian. This ap-
ing action in the center with the d4–d5 and e2–e4 parently quiet development may lead to complex mid-
thrusts.
8.8.2 Other lines
4.a3
The Petrosian Variation, prepares 5.Nc3 without being
harassed by ...Bb4 pinning the knight. See Gurevich
(1992) for an extensive analysis. This variation was often
used by Garry Kasparov early in his career.
4.Nc3
Black can choose between 4...Bb7 and 4...Bb4.
• 4...Bb7 5. a3 became the more common move or-
der to reach the Petrosian system by the mid-1980s,
where White has avoided 4. a3 c5 5. d5 Ba6 and 4.
a3 Ba6.
• 4...Bb7 5. Bg5 is an older line which gives Black
good equalizing chances after 5...h6 6. Bh4 g5 7.
Bg3 Nh5 8. e3 Nxg3 9. hxg3 Bg7.
After 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Be7, White can play 6.e3 or
6.Qc2.
4. Nc3 Bb4 is a Queen’s Indian / Nimzo-Indian line (also
3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 b6). Moves for White include 5.Bg5,
5.e3, and 5.Qb3. After 5.Bg5, Black may play 5...Bb7
or 5...h6. 4. Nc3 Bb4 5.e3 is a Nimzo-Indian / Queen’s
Indian line. With move 5.e3, Black usually plays 5...Bb7.
After 5.Qb3, Black usually plays 5...c5.
• 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Bb7 (also 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Bb4).
White can play 6.e3, then Black usually plays 6...h6,
although 6.Nd2 or 6.Qc2 may be better.
• 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.e3 Bb7 (also 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.e3 Bb4).
White usually plays 6.Bd3 for the Fischer Variation
of the Nimzo-Indian (same as 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6
5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3). Other moves are no good.
• 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Bb7 6.e3 h6, White can play
7.Bh4.
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
• 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 Bb7 (also 4.Nc3 Bb7
5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 Bb4), White can play 7.e3.
The position after 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 g5 7. Bg3 Ne4 8.
Qc2 was heavily played and analysed in the 1980s.
Preparing to develop the king’s bishop and castle king-
dlegame play. Black usually replies 4...Bb7, then play
may continue 5.Bd3 d5 6.O-O or 5.Nc3 Bb4, transpos-
ing into the Nimzo-Indian Defence.
4.Bf4
The Miles Variation, which simply develops the bishop to
a good square; despite some success by its originator, this
idea has never been popular.
8.8.3 ECO codes
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings classifies the
Queen’s Indian under codes E12 to E19 according to the
following scheme:
• E12 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6
• E13 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5
• E14 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e3
• E15 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3
• E16 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7
• E17 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2
Be7
• E18 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2
Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3
• E19 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2
Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2
8.8.4 References
[1] Gurevich, Mikhail (1992). Queen’s Indian Defence: Kas-
parov System. Batsford Chess Library. ISBN 0-8050-
2315-1.
[2] Pein, Malcolm (14 December 2007). Three Indian tales,
The Daily Telegraph.
[3] John Emms (2004). Starting Out: The Queen’s Indian.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-363-2.
[4] “Kamran G Shirazi vs Joel Benjamin”. Chessgames.com.
Retrieved 2009-04-13.
8.10. TORRE ATTACK 181

[5] Nimzo & Benoni Update November 2007 Chesspublish- • 3...Be7

ing.com, John Emms

[6] Nimzo & Benoni Update September 2008 Chesspublish- Unless the game transposes to another variation, the Neo-
ing.com, John Emms Indian is classified as E00 by the Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings.

8.8.5 Further reading

8.9.2 References
• Soltis, Andrew (1981). Queen’s Indian Defense.
R.H.M. Press. ISBN 978-0-89058-051-6. [1] “David Janowski vs Edward Lasker”. chessgames.com.
Retrieved 1 March 2010.
• Kallai, Gabor; Ribli, Zoltán (1987). Winning With
[2] Palliser, Richard. “Nimzo & Benoni July 06 update”.
the Queen’s Indian. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-
chesspublishing.com. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
0-02-029801-4.
• Lalic, Bogdan (1997). The Queen’s Indian Defence.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-157-4. 8.10 Torre Attack
• Aagaard, Jacob (2002). Queen’s Indian Defence.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-300-4. The Torre Attack is a chess opening characterized by the
moves:

8.9 Neo-Indian Attack 1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 e6
Neo-Indian Attack 3. Bg5 (ECO code A46)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Bg5
or the Torre system in King’s Indian Defence (ECO code
The Neo-Indian Attack is a chess opening that begins A48)
with the moves:
2... g6
1. d4 Nf6 3. Bg5
2. c4 e6
3. Bg5 or the Tartakower variation in Queen’s Pawn Game
(ECO code D03)
This opening is also known as the Seirawan Attack, after
top 1980s player Yasser Seirawan. 2... d5
3. Bg5

8.9.1 Description
8.10.1 Description
The pinning of the f6-knight looks similar to the Torre
Attack, but while the Torre is fairly common, the Neo- White pursues quick and harmonious development, will
Indian is rarely played. The move order has been used by bolster his d4-pawn by c2–c3, then often enforces e2–e4
players such as David Janowski against Edward Lasker in to obtain attacking chances on the kingside as the Torre
New York City 1922.[1] The opening has been consid- Bishop pins the f6-knight. If White plays an early c4,
ered possible opening surprise in the Secrets of Opening the opening will transpose to a number of more common
Surprises series.[2] queen pawn openings, such as the Queen’s Gambit or one
The most common responses from Black are: of the various Indian defences.
The opening is named after the Mexican grandmaster
• 3...h6 which forces the bishop to move again, and Carlos Torre Repetto, who beat former World Cham-
[1]
unlike the Trompowsky Attack, 4.Bxf6 will not pion Emanuel Lasker with it. The variation was also
leave Black with doubled pawns. employed by Savielly Tartakower, Boris Spassky, and
Tigran Petrosian early in his career. Other noted top-
• 3...Bb4+ which can transpose to the Leningrad vari- level exponents include Alexey Dreev, Pentala Harikr-
ation of the Nimzo-Indian Defense after 4.Nc3 or ishna, Krishnan Sasikiran and Jan Timman.[2]
lead to unique variations after 4.Nd2.
The Torre Attack is rarely met in modern top-flight play
• 3...c5 4.d5 as a “Go to or Primary” system, and statistics suggest that
182 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

it is not particularly advantageous for White.[3][4][5] Due
to its calm nature and relative lack of theory, however,
it is popular at club level, giving White chances to seize
a middlegame initiative. In recent years it has also been
used against Black’s kingside fianchetto pawn structure.
[5] “Torre Attack: King’s Indian Defence (A48)". Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
[6] Loek Van Wely vs Peter Leko (1996) “Loek of the Draw”

8.10.5 Further reading

8.10.2 Torre Attack (ECO A48)

A variation of East Indian Defence, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3
g6 3.Bg5, is often also called Torre Attack.
After ...Bg7, White usually plays 4.Nbd2 but can also play
4.c3.
After 4.Nbd2, common lines include 4...0-0 5.c3 and
4...d5 5.e3 0-0.
• Tangborn, Eric (1993). The Complete Torre Attack.
International Chess Enterprises. ISBN 1-879479-
14-1.
• Gufeld, Eduard; Stetsko, Oleg (1994). Winning
With the Torre Attack. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN
0805032800.

• Palliser, Richard (2012). The Torre Attack Move by

Example game
Move. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-923-
5.
Van Wely–Leko, 1996

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bg5 Bg7 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.c3

d6 6.e4 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.0-0 Qc7
10.Qe2 h6 11.Bh4 Nh5 12.Rfe1 Ne5 13.Nxe5
Bxe5 14.g3 Bh8 15.f4 Ng7 16.Qf3 Be6
17.Rad1 Rad8 18.Bxe6 Nxe6 19.f5 g5 20.fxe6
gxh4 21.Qg4 Bg7 22.Qxh4 c4 23.Kg2 fxe6
24.Qg4 Rf6 25.Nf3 Rdf8 26.Nd4 h5 27.Qxh5
Rf2 28.Kh3 Qe5 29.Qxe5 Bxe5 30.Nxe6 R8f6
31.Rd8 Kf7 32.Ng5 Kg7 33.Rd7 Rh6 34.Kg4
Bf6 35.Ne6 Kf7 36.Nf4 Rh8 37.h4 Rg8
38.Kh3 Be5 39.Rd5 Bxf4 40.Rf5 Ke6 41.Rxf4
Rxb2 42.h5 b5 43.Rg4 Rxg4 44.Kxg4 Rxa2
45.h6 Rh2 46.Kg5 Ke5 47.g4 a5 48.Rb1 Kxe4
49.Rxb5 a4 50.Ra5 Kd3 51.Kg6 a3 52.h7 e5
53.Rxe5 Rxh7 54.Kxh7 Kxc3 55.Ra5 Kb2
56.g5 a2 57.g6 a1=Q 58.Rxa1 Kxa1 59.g7 c3
60.g8=Q c2 ½–½[6]
8.10.3 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
8.10.4 References
[1] “Carlos Torre Repetto vs Emanuel Lasker, Moscow
(1925)". Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
[2] Palliser 2012, p. 7.
[3] “Torre Attack: Tartakower variation (D03)". Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
[4] “Torre Attack: Queen’s Pawn Game (A46)". Chess- him to meet 3.Nf3 Bb4+ (the Bogo-Indian Defence) with
games.com. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
8.11 Nimzo-Indian Defence
The Nimzo-Indian Defence is a chess opening charac-
terised by the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
Other move orders, such as 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.d4 Bb4,
are also feasible. In the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings,
the Nimzo-Indian is classified as E20–E59.
This hypermodern opening was developed by
Grandmaster Aron Nimzowitsch who introduced it
to master-level chess in the early 20th century. Unlike
most Indian openings, the Nimzo-Indian does not involve
an immediate fianchetto, although Black often follows up
with ...b6 and ...Bb7. By pinning White’s knight, Black
prevents the threatened 4.e4 and seeks to inflict doubled
pawns on White. White will attempt to create a pawn
centre and develop his pieces to prepare for an assault on
the Black position.
Black’s delay in committing to a pawn structure makes
the Nimzo-Indian (sometimes colloquially referred to as
the “Nimzo”) a very flexible defence to 1.d4. It can also
transpose into lines of the Queen’s Gambit or Queen’s
Indian Defence. The Nimzo-Indian is a highly respected
defence to 1.d4, is played at all levels and has been played
by every world champion since Capablanca. White often
plays 3.g3 or 3.Nf3 to avoid the Nimzo-Indian, allowing
4.Bd2 or 4.Nbd2, rather than 4.Nc3.
8.11. NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 183

8.11.1 General considerations 4...0-0 Main line: 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0

Botvinnik vs. Reshevsky, Moscow 1948 Position after 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0
Position after 24.Qe2–a2
Black’s most flexible and frequently played response is
In the Nimzo-Indian, Black is generally prepared to con- 4...0-0. The main line continues 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-
cede the bishop pair by playing Bxc3. As dynamic com- 0, reaching the position in the diagram.
pensation, he often doubles White’s c-pawns, which rep- White has completed his kingside development, while
resent a static weakness, and gains play against the central Black has claimed his share of the centre. At this point,
light squares d5 and e4, even in those instances where the most important continuations are:
White is able to recapture with a piece after ...Bxc3.
Black will aim to close the position to reduce the scope
of White’s bishops. To this end, Black must blockade 7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7 (Parma Variation)
the white pawn centre from advancing and neutralise 7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 (Karpov Vari-
White’s attacking chances on the kingside. An example ation)
of Black’s strategy carried out successfully is the game
7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nc6 9.a3 Ba5 (Larsen Varia-
Mikhail Botvinnik versus Samuel Reshevsky from the
tion)
1948 World Chess Championship, which reached the po-
sition in the diagram after White’s 24th move. 7...Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Qc7
(Main Variation)
Earlier in the game, Reshevsky was able to block White’s
kingside attack by playing Nf6–e8 and f7–f5. Now, 7...Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qc7 (Khasin Varia-
both White’s bishops are reduced to defence, and White’s tion)
queen is reduced to passivity at the a2-square to defend 7...Nbd7 (Averbakh Variation)
the pawns on a3 and c4. Without prospects for counter-
play, White’s game is strategically hopeless, and Black
ultimately exchanged queens and won the endgame. • The Parma Variation (7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7) is
named after Slovenian grandmaster Bruno Parma,
and can sometimes transpose to the Karpov Vari-
ation if pawns are exchanged on d4. White usually
8.11.2 Rubinstein System: 4.e3 continues with 9.Qe2, clearing the d1-square for the
rook, which will assist in the advance of the d-pawn.
Position after 4.e3 Black then faces an important decision. He may play
9...b6, with the intention of playing ...cxd4 at some
The Rubinstein System (named after Akiba Rubin- point to isolate the d-pawn and blockade it, or ex-
stein) is White’s most common method of combating change on c3 as well to play against the isolated c3–
the Nimzo-Indian. Svetozar Gligorić and Lajos Portisch d4 pawn couple. Or, he can consider 9...a6 to grab
made great contributions to the theory and practice of space on the queenside with ...b5. In this case, Black
this line at top level during their careers. White continues will usually retain his dark-squared bishop.
his development before committing to a definite plan of
action. In reply, Black has three main moves to choose Black also has two rare alternatives on his eighth
from: 4...0-0, 4...c5, and 4...b6. move worth mentioning: 8...Qe7 intending ...Rd8 is the
In addition, Black sometimes plays 4...d5 or 4...Nc6. Smyslov Variation, invented by former World Cham-
4...d5 can transpose to lines arising from 4...0-0, but pion Vasily Smyslov, and 8...Bd7 followed by ...Bc6 is the
White has the extra option of 5.a3 (known as the Bronstein Variation, the brainchild of two-time world
Botvinnik Variation). This forces Black to retreat the championship finalist David Bronstein.
bishop to e7 or capture on c3, which transposes to a
line of the Sämisch Variation long considered good for • The Karpov Variation, (7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 cxd4
White because he will undouble his pawns at some point 9.exd4 b6) named after former World Champion
by playing cxd5, eliminating the weak pawn on c4, then Anatoly Karpov, is one of Black’s most reliable de-
prepare the e4 pawn break, backed by the bishop pair, fences to the Rubinstein System. For the moment,
which will gain force in the more open type of position White has an isolated pawn in the d-file, even so,
which will ensue. 4...Nc6 is the Taimanov Variation, Black plans to play ...Bxc3 at some point and fol-
named after Russian GM Mark Taimanov. Black pre- low up with ...Bb7, ...Nbd7, ...R(a)c8 and ...Qc7
pares to play ...e5, which may be preceded by...d5 and to restrain White’s c- and d-pawns. After 7...dxc4
...dxc4, or ...d6. The variation was tried several times by 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 the game usually contin-
the young Bobby Fischer, and has long been favoured by ues 10.Bg5 Bb7, when 11.Ne5, 11.Re1, 11.Rc1 and
GM Nukhim Rashkovsky. 11.Qe2 are all good moves for White.
184 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

• The Larsen Variation (named after GM Bent

Larsen) can be reached by either 7...dxc4 8.Bxc4
Nc6 9.a3 Ba5 or 7...Nc6 8.a3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Ba5, but
the latter move order gives White the extra option of
9.axb4. The idea is to wait until White plays dxc5
before playing ...Bxc3. If White does not oblige,
then Black will play ...Bb6 with pressure on the d-
pawn. The point of inserting ...dxc4 before ...Ba5 is
to prevent White from inflicting an isolated queen’s
pawn (IQP) on Black by playing cxd5.

• The Main Variation was enormously popular in the

1950s, but the name has become increasingly inap-
propriate ever since. This is not because the line
is bad for Black – on the contrary, Black equalises
in all variations – but because White has a huge se-
lection of moves to choose from, and Black must
be familiar with all of them. After 7...Nc6 8.a3
Bxc3 9.bxc3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Qc7, White has tried
11.Be2, 11.Bd3, 11.Ba2, 11.Bb2, 11.Bb5 (trying to
provoke ...a6 before retreating the bishop), 11.h3,
11.a4, 11.Re1, 11.Qc2, and 11.Qe2. Regardless of
the move chosen, however, the basic strategic ideas Abram Khasin, 1995
remain similar: Black will play a quick ...e5 to pres-
surize d4. If White has a bishop on d3, then Black
also threatens ...e4 forking it and the knight on f3. 4...0-0: lines with Ne2
White will try to advance his centre pawns to free
his bishops: c4, d5, and f3 followed by e4 are all In general, the main line of the Rubinstein has held up
possible. If Black can prevent White from achiev- very well for Black, so since the 1980s White has begun to
ing this, then he will enjoy the better game. There look elsewhere for chances of obtaining an advantage. In
are several move orders to reach the Main Variation the Rubinstein, White has often resorted to playing Ne2
besides the one given above; 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3 rather than Nf3 at some point to be able to recapture on
Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.0-0 is c3 with the knight, thus avoiding the doubled pawns. Two
one worth noting, because White may try 9.Ne2 in- lines where White does this (following 4.e3 0-0) are:
stead.
5.Nge2 (Reshevsky Variation)
5.Bd3 d5 6.Ne2 (Modern Variation)

• 7...Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qc7 is the Khasin Vari-
ation, named after International Master Abram
Khasin. 10.cxd5 exd5 is the usual continuation.
White will try to build up a strong centre with f3
and e4, or he may play for a kingside attack with f3
and g4. Black will try to restrain White’s centre as
well as he can, ideally blockading it, before mobilis-
ing his queenside pawn majority.
• The Averbakh Variation (7...Nbd7) was popular-
ized by Grandmasters Viacheslav Ragozin and Yuri
Averbakh. The idea is to exchange pawns on c4 and
d4 and then bring the d7-knight to b6 and d5. The
same knight may also move to f8 to defend the black
king. This line has gone out of fashion since the
1960s due to GM Svetozar Gligorić's gambit idea
8.cxd5 exd5 9.a3 Ba5 10.b4! cxb4 11.Nb5! with
pressure along the queenside files and a potential
square for the knight on d6.
• The Reshevsky Variation was a specialty of GM
Samuel Reshevsky. White will first play a3 to kick
the bishop away, before moving his knight on e2 to
a more active square. The main line runs 5.Ne2 d5
6.a3 Be7 7.cxd5, when both 7...exd5 and 7...Nxd5
are possible, the latter move leading to livelier play.
GM Mikhail Gurevich is currently the foremost ex-
pert in the Reshevsky Variation.
• 5.Bd3 d5 6.Ne2 and the closely related variant
5.Bd3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Ne2 were collectively
dubbed the Modern Variation by FM Carsten
Hansen in his book on the Rubinstein Nimzo-
Indian.[1] White again avoids the doubled pawns,
but develops his bishop to d3 first so that it isn't
blocked in by the knight on e2. Black usually con-
tinues 6...c5, putting more pressure on White’s cen-
tre. While 7.a3 and 7.0-0 are playable, the main line
is 7.cxd5 cxd4 8.exd4 Nxd5 9.0-0 Nc6, leading to
an IQP position with White’s knight on e2 rather
8.11. NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE
than f3, as is normally the case. This gives Black
the possibility of playing ...e5 at some point to com-
pletely liquidate the centre, although the resulting
positions are rather drawish. White’s main options
on his tenth move are 10.a3, putting the question to
the bishop, and 10.Bc2, intending 11.Qd3 with an
attack on h7.
4...c5
Position after 4.e3 c5
Black puts pressure on d4 and leaves open the option of
playing ...d5, or ...d6 and ...e5. The game can still trans-
pose to the main line mentioned above after moves such
as 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0, but there are two major
variations particular to 4...c5:
• 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nf3 (6.Ne2 will likely transpose to the
Modern Variation) 6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6 is the Hüb-
ner Variation, popularized by GM Robert Hübner
in the late 1960s and '70s and utilised by Bobby Fis-
cher in his world championship match with Boris
Spassky in 1972 with great effect in Game 5. It is
slightly unusual in that Black captures on c3 with-
out waiting for White to play a3, but this is because
Black intends to immediately set up a blockade on
the dark squares with ...d6 and ...e5. This is feasible
because White’s knight is on f3; if it were on e2 (as
in some lines of the Sämisch), White could quickly
advance his kingside pawns, but in the current line
the knight must be moved away first. By closing
the position, Black is able to make his knights su-
perior to White’s bishops, and the doubled c-pawns
deprive White of any pawn breaks on the queenside.
It was the success of this variation that motivated the
current tendency for White players to choose lines
where the doubled pawns are avoided. When he
does play into this line, White has two main setups to
choose from: he may immediately close the centre
by playing 8.e4 e5 9.d5 Ne7, or play more flexibly
with 8.0-0 e5 9.Nd2 0-0, but Black has full equality
in both lines.
• 5.Ne2 the Rubinstein Variation (this is why 4.e3
is properly referred to as the Rubinstein “system”
or “complex” to avoid confusion) is similar in spirit
to the Reshevsky Variation: White prevents Black
from doubling his pawns. After 5.Ne2, Black opens
a path of retreat for his bishop with 5...cxd4 6.exd4,
and now chooses between 6...d5 and 6...0-0. 6...d5
allows 7.c5, a typical continuation being 7...Ne4
8.Bd2 Nxd2 9.Qxd2 a5 10.a3 Bxc3 11.Nxc3 a4.
White’s c4–c5 push created a queenside pawn ma-
jority, which Black neutralized by playing a7–a5–
a4. Black will now try to destroy the rest of White’s
pawn formation by playing ...b6 or ...e5, while
185
White will try to use his lead in development to cre-
ate attacking chances on the kingside. The alterna-
tive is 6...0-0 7.a3 Be7. Here Kasparov played 8.d5
exd5 9.cxd5 a few times early in his career, increas-
ing his space advantage further but falling behind in
development. A safer move for White is 8.Nf4.
4...b6
Position after 4.e3 b6
Favoured by Nimzowitsch, 4...b6 is a move in accordance
with the spirit of the Nimzo-Indian: Black fianchettoes
his light-squared bishop to increase his control over e4.
White usually continues 5.Ne2, avoiding the doubled
pawns, or 5.Bd3, continuing his development (5.Nf3 usu-
ally transposes to 5.Bd3). The main variations emerging
from this move are:
5.Ne2 Ba6 (Fischer Variation)
5.Ne2 c5 (Romanishin–Psakhis Variation)
5.Ne2 Ne4 (American Variation)
5.Ne2 Bb7
5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 d5 (Classical Fi-
anchetto Variation or Tal Variation)
5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 c5 (Keres Varia-
tion)
5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 Ne4 (Dutch Variation)
• The Fischer Variation (5.Ne2 Ba6) aims to ex-
change light-squared bishops after ...d5 so that
Black can play on the light squares. Keres, Bronstein
and Smyslov were early contributors to the theory
of this line, and Fischer used it several times suc-
cessfully. White may play 6.a3, which was favoured
by Botvinnik and asks the bishop on b4 to clarify
its intentions, or 6.Ng3, which was invented by Re-
shevsky and prepares e4.
• 5.Ne2 c5 6.a3 Ba5!? was dubbed the Romanishin–
Psakhis Variation by Carsten Hansen[1] because
Oleg Romanishin and Lev Psakhis were the two
grandmasters who were primarily responsible for re-
viving the line and infusing it with new ideas. It can
also arise via the move order 4.e3 c5 5.Ne2 b6 6.a3
Ba5. Black dares White to try and trap the bishop
on a5, a challenge White usually takes up, but rarely
successfully.
• The American Variation is another name invented
by Hansen[1] for the line 5.Ne2 Ne4, as it was pio-
neered by GM Isaac Kashdan and then developed by
GM Bisguier, IM Anthony Santasiere and currently
GM Nick de Firmian. Black will exchange off two
minor pieces and play ...f5 to keep e4 under control.
186
• 5.Ne2 Bb7 is a rather passive line: White seems
to obtain a slight advantage by continuing 6.a3 Be7
7.d5, blocking in the bishop on b7 and making e3–
e4 possible.
• The Classical Fianchetto Variation, also known include 4...0-0, 4...c5, 4...d5, and 4...Nc6 (4...d6 intend-
as the Tal Variation, can be reached through two ing ...Nbd7 and ...e5 is a rarer fifth option).
move orders: 4.e3 b6 5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0
d5 or 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7. It is
a solid variation where White often holds the initia-
tive early on, but Black usually equalises in the end.
White has two ways to attack Black’s setup. The first
is to play 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Ne5 followed by 10.f4 and
transferring the queen or f1-rook to h3 via f3. This
formation, known as the Pillsbury Attack, blocks in
the dark-squared bishop and appears rather crude,
but is actually quite dangerous. Black must cre-
ate immediate pressure on White’s centre by playing
...c5, and ...Ne4 may be a handy move at some point
to block the b1–h7 diagonal and perhaps exchange
some pieces. The main alternative for White is 8.a3
Bd6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.b4, which gains space on the
queenside and makes it harder for Black to free his
position with ...c5.
• The Keres Variation, characterised by the moves
5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 c5, is named after Es-
tonian GM Paul Keres, although Smyslov and Bron-
stein were also early practitioners of this line. If al-
lowed, Black will play ...cxd4 and ...d5 in the hope of
leaving White with an isolated queen’s pawn. Nowa-
days, White’s most testing continuation is reckoned
to be 8.Na4, ducking the exchange on c3 and threat-
ening 9.a3. The knight will often stay on a4 for quite
some time to assist in a potential c4–c5 push. After
8...cxd4 9.exd4, Black often sets up a Hedgehog for-
mation (pawns on a6, b6, d6 and e6), while White
will try to pursue a strategy of gaining queenside
space with b4 and c5.
• The Dutch Variation is so-called because after
5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 Ne4, Black usually follows up with
7...f5, with a position that resembles the Dutch De-
fence (1.d4 f5). It is not a very common line, proba-
bly because White obtains good chances by playing
7.0-0 f5 8.d5, sacrificing a pawn to open up lines for
his bishops.
8.11.3 Classical Variation: 4.Qc2
Position after 4.Qc2
The Classical or Capablanca Variation was popular in
the early days of the Nimzo-Indian, and though eventually
superseded by 4.e3 it was revived in the 1990s; it is now
just as popular as the Rubinstein. White aims to acquire
the two bishops without compromising his pawn struc-
ture. The drawback is that the queen will move at least
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
twice within the opening moves and that White’s king-
side development is delayed. Thus, even though White
possesses the bishop pair, it is usually advisable for Black
to open the game quickly to exploit his lead in develop-
ment. Black has four common replies to 4.Qc2. These
• 4...0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Bg5 is nowa-
days the main line of the Classical Variation (al-
though 6...b5!? is a gambit invented by Alvis Vi-
tolinš). Black’s usual choice is 7...Bb7, but 7...Ba6
is also possible to target the c-pawn, and 7...h6
8.Bh4 c5 and 7...c5 are sometimes played as well.
After 7...Bb7, White’s most straightforward move
is 8.f3 preparing e4, but Black can counter with
8...h6 9.Bh4 d5, when the pawn grab 10.cxd5
exd5 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qxc7 Ba6 is very danger-
ous for White because of Black’s better develop-
ment. Therefore, White has sometimes tried 8.e3
instead, when after 8...h6 9.Bh4 d5?! 10.cxd5 exd5?
11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qxc7 Ba6 White has 13.Bxa6
Nxa6 14.Qb7. Thus Black should prefer 8.e3 d6,
planning ...Nbd7 and ...c5.
Both players can deviate from the main line. Instead
of 7.Bg5, White can play 7.Nf3 Bb7 8.e3, intend-
ing to develop the dark-squared bishop to b2. An-
other possibility is 4.Qc2 0-0 5.e4, although this is
somewhat inconsistent with 4.Qc2 as Black might be
able to double White’s c-pawns at some point (the
queen must guard e4), something 4.Qc2 was sup-
posed to prevent. After 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3, Black
can also try 6...Ne4 7.Qc2 f5, which is similar to
the Dutch Variation (see 4.e3 b6), but without the
doubled pawns for White.
• 4...c5 exploits the fact that on c2, the queen no
longer defends the d-pawn. If White defends the
pawn, then Black gets an easy game by keeping
the pressure on d4, so White almost always plays
5.dxc5. Black can choose to recapture on c5 with
the bishop (e.g. 5...Bxc5 or 5...0-0 6.a3 Bxc5), or
with the knight (after 5...Na6 or 5...0-0 6.Nf3 Na6).
In the former case, the bishop will eventually re-
treat to e7 and Black will set up a Hedgehog for-
mation (pawns on a6, b6, d6 and e6). If Black re-
captures with the knight, he will often have to give
up the bishop pair at some point with ...Bxc3, but
the knight is useful on c5 and can later go to e4, at-
tacking the queen on c3. 4...c5 5.dxc5 0-0 (the Pirc
Variation) was one of the reasons why 4.Qc2 was
not popular during the mid-20th century, because
the lines where Black eventually recaptures with the
knight was reckoned to give Black easy equality,
while the line which prevented this maneuver, 6.a3
Bxc5 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 Nd4 9.Nxd4 Bxd4 10.e3
Qa5 11.exd4 Qxg5, left the Black queen active,
while White still needs to secure the king. It was
the discovery of 12.Qd2! which revived this line
8.11. NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE
for White, because the endgame after 12...Qxd2+
13.Kxd2 offers White a slight edge. Indeed, Edmar
Mednis's remark was that the entire Pirc Variation
had become unplayable at the highest level,[2] while
Modern Chess Openings (MCO) cites this variation
as the main problem with 4...c5. However, players
like Kramnik have been willing to defend the Black
side of this line against players like Kasparov.[3]
• 4...d5 is another move that strikes immediately in
the centre, and was a favourite of Mikhail Botvin-
nik. After 5.cxd5, Black can either recapture with
the queen or pawn. 5...Qxd5 is the Romanishin
System: the idea is that after 6.Nf3 Qf5 7.Qxf5
exf5, Black strengthens his grip on e4 and makes
e6 available for the bishop, which is enough for him
to obtain equality. White can avoid this with 6.e3 so
that 6...Qf5 can be met with 7.Bd3, but the e3-pawn
blocks in White’s c1-bishop. The older alternative is
5...exd5 6.Bg5 h6, which tends to be a rather sharp
line. After 4...d5, White can also play 5.a3 Bxc3+
6.Qxc3 Ne4 7.Qc2, when Black may play 7...c5 or
7...Nc6 intending ...e5. Even though White pos-
sesses the pair of bishops, Black still strives for a
quick opening of the position to exploit his lead in
development. The usual result of this is a dynami-
cally balanced position.
• 4...Nc6 is the Zürich or Milner-Barry Variation
(named after British chess player Stuart Milner-
Barry). Black gives up the dark-squared bishop, but
places his central pawns on d6 and e5 so that his re-
maining bishop is unimpeded. To avoid moving his
queen, White will play Bd2 at some point so that
when Black takes the knight, White can recapture
with the bishop. 4...Nc6 is out of fashion because
most players prefer to avoid blocking their c-pawn.
A topical line would go 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
4.Qc2 Nc6 5.Nf3 (better than 5.e3) d6, with the
idea of playing e5. Black often prepares this with
castling and ...Re8 or by playing Qe7. After Black
plays ...e5, White usually responds with d5. Black
is willing to lose a tempo moving the Knight back to
b8 (or e7, which is often better) because the posi-
tion is closed. White usually plays on the Queenside
in this variation, while Black will try to play on the
Kingside with ...f5 and possibly transferring the c6
Knight over to the Kingside after White’s d5. To-
day, the line arises quite often by transposition from
the Black Knights Tango, e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6
3.Nf3 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Qc2.
8.11.4 Kasparov Variation: 4.Nf3
Position after 4.Nf3
4.Nf3 is known as the Kasparov Variation, since Garry
Kasparov used it to great effect against Anatoly Karpov
187
in their 1985 World Championship match. Kasparov
played 4.Nf3 six times, scoring three wins and three
draws.[4] Today as White, this is a favourite weapon of
GM Alexei Barsov and former Women’s Champion Nona
Gaprindashvili.
White develops the knight to a natural square and waits
to see Black’s reply. 4...d5 transposes to the Ragozin De-
fence of the Queen’s Gambit Declined and 4...b6 5.Bg5
Bb7 transposes to the Nimzo/Queen’s Indian hybrid line,
so 4...c5 is the most common move that stays within
Nimzo-Indian territory. Now 5.e3 transposes to the Ru-
binstein System, but the main move is 5.g3, which leads
to a position that also arises from the Fianchetto Varia-
tion. 5.g3 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Bg2 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 can
be considered the main line. Black has dissolved White’s
centre, but the bishop on g2 exerts pressure on the black
queenside, which White may augment with 9.Qb3.
This line can also arise from the Bogo-Indian Defence
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+) if White blocks the check
with 4.Nc3.[5]
8.11.5 Other variations
• 4. f3 – This line has no generally accepted name,
so is usually just referred to as the 4.f3 Variation.
It has previously been called the Gheorghiu Varia-
tion (a name given by Gligorić), named after Florin
Gheorghiu who often played it early in his career,
even defeating Fischer, and sometimes the Shirov
Variation, after Alexei Shirov who used it with
great success in the early 1990s, before he lost three
consecutive games with the line and abandoned it.
It is a straightforward attempt to seize control of
e4, though at the cost of delaying development, and
therefore attempts to refute Black’s plan, which has
been to play for control of the e4-square. Black can
play ...d5 or ...c5. After ...d5, the game may go
5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5, a position also
reached from the Sämisch Variation. Black’s pres-
sure on c3 and d4 compels White to play 8.dxc5, try-
ing to open the position for his two bishops. White
will follow up with e4, and Black will counter with
...e5 at some point to prevent White from pushing
his e- and f-pawns further up the board. Another ap-
proach for Black is to play 4...c5, after which White
plays 5.d5 to keep his central pawns together reaches
a Benoni-style position, and Black’s main replies are
5...b5, 5...0-0, 5...Bxc3+ and 5...Nh5. 5.a3 Bxc3+
6.bxc3 is a direct transposition to the Sämisch Vari-
ation below.
• 4. Bg5 – The Leningrad Variation received its
name because its theory was developed extensively
by players from that city, such as Boris Spassky.
Black can play ...h6 or ...c5. After ...h6, the game
may go 5. Bh4 c5 6. d5. Now Black has some
choices. With move ...d6, follows 7. e3 Bxc3+
188
8. bxc3 e5, when Black has achieved a Hübner
Variation-like blockade, the difference being that
White’s dark-squared bishop is outside the pawn
chain. The pin on the f6-knight is very annoying,
and Black often finds himself compelled to break
it by playing the drastic g7–g5, which also clamps
down on a potential f2–f4 break by White. This
move weakens Black’s kingside, so he often will not
castle, walking his king to c7 via d8. An alternative
to 6...d6 or ...Bxc3+ is 6...b5, much played in the
1970s after Mikhail Tal scored a crushing win over
Spassky at Tallinn 1973.
• 4.a3 – The Sämisch Variation (named after Fritz
Sämisch) is a direct attempt to refute Black’s strate-
gic concept, as White gives up a tempo and con-
cedes doubled c-pawns to gain the bishop pair. Af-
ter 4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3, Black has several possibil-
ities, the most common of which is that he im-
mediately begins to blockade the doubled pawns
with 5....c5 and applies more pressure on the (often
doomed) pawn at c4 with the moves Ba6, Nc6–a5
and Rc8. In the early days of this line, 5....d5 was
frequently played, though it was soon realised that
this enabled White to liquidate the weakness at c4,
so the idea fell from favour, particularly after the
game Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938,
and has never been revived at top level. As com-
pensation, White establishes a powerful centre, in
order to play for a kingside attack before Black can
make use of his static advantages. White has two
main options for playing: he can move slowly into
the centre with 6.e3, or he can play 6.f3, followed
by 7.e4 to take a quick hold in the centre. In prac-
tice, however, Black has demonstrated that White’s
structural weaknesses are more serious than the at-
tacking chances he gets, so this variation is rarely
seen nowadays. The Sämisch Variation was em-
ployed five times by Mikhail Botvinnik against Tal
in the 1960 World Chess Championship, with five
draws resulting, and once in the 1961 rematch, with
a win for White.[6]
• 4. g3 – The Fianchetto Variation resembles the
Catalan System, where White fianchettoes his king’s
bishop to put pressure on the centre squares from
the flank. Black can play 4...c5 5.Nf3 with a posi-
tion also reached from the Kasparov Variation (see
above), but 4...d5 is possible as well. This is consid-
ered the strongest response, since if allowed, Black
can take the pawn on c4 and often keep it. This is
not usually possible in the Catalan, where White’s
knight is developed to d2 and can simply recapture
on c4.
• 4. Qb3 – The Spielmann Variation is named af-
ter Rudolf Spielmann who played it at Carlsbad,
1929, and was played at GM level in the early 1930s,
though soon eclipsed in popularity by 4.Qc2. Like
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
the Classical Variation, it avoids the doubling of
White’s pawns. However, unlike 4.Qc2, the queen
has no control over e4, which Black can exploit by
playing 4...c5 5.dxc5 Nc6 6.Nf3 Ne4, for exam-
ple. Thus, despite the occasional revival by GMs
Vladimir Akopian, Vladimir Malaniuk and Jeroen
Piket, this variation is also unusual.
• 4. e4 – The Dilworth Gambit, named for Vernon
Dilworth, who contributed an article on the variation
to the March 1949 issue of CHESS magazine. Dil-
worth’s idea was 4...Nxe4 5.Qg4 Nxc3 6.Bd2. How-
ever, White’s compensation for the pawn is nebulous
at best, and the line accordingly never developed a
following beyond Dilworth himself. (No. 3762)
Chris Ward called the gambit “critical, but basically
rubbish”.[7]
• 4. Bd2, unpinning the knight, is a move that is
common among amateurs who have no theoreti-
cal knowledge when they face the Nimzo-Indian.
Although the move is not bad, it is unambitious.
The strategic aim of obtaining the bishop pair with-
out conceding the doubled pawns fails, for after
e.g., 4...Bxc3 5.Bxc3 Ne4, White does not get to
keep both bishops, and fair trades are usually not
in White’s interests since White has an advantage in
space.[7]
• 4. Qd3 – The Mikenas Variation is named after
Vladas Mikėnas. It supports the knight and brings
the queen to a central location, but the queen is ex-
posed on d3, making this variation rare.[7]
8.11.6 ECO codes
In the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, the Nimzo-
Indian Defence has codes E20 to E59. All codes be-
gin with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4, excluding E20,
which also includes alternatives to 3...Bb4 apart from
3...d5 (which would be the Queen’s Gambit Declined).
E20 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 (includes Ro-
manishin Variation, 4.f3 Variation of Nimzo-
Indian excluding 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+, which is
covered under E25)
E21 – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3
(Kasparov Variation excluding 4...c5 5.g3,
which is covered under E20)
E22 – 4.Qb3 (E22 and E23 cover the Spiel-
mann Variation)
E23 – 4.Qb3 c5
E24 – 4.a3 (E24–E29 cover the Sämisch Vari-
ation)
E25 – 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5
E26 – 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.e3
8.12. BOGO-INDIAN DEFENCE
E27 – 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 0-0
E28 – 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 0-0 6.e3
E29 – 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 0-0 6.e3 c5
E30 – 4.Bg5 (E30 and E31 cover the Leningrad
Variation)
E31 – 4.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 c5 6.d5 d6
E32 – 4.Qc2 (includes 4...0-0; E32–E39 cover
the Classical/Capablanca Variation)
E33 – 4.Qc2 Nc6 (Zürich/Milner-Barry Vari-
ation)
E34 – 4.Qc2 d5
E35 – 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 exd5
E36 – 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3
E37 – 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Ne4
E38 – 4.Qc2 c5
E39 – 4.Qc2 c5 5.dxc5 0-0
E40 – 4.e3 (includes Taimanov Variation;
E40–E59 cover the Rubinstein System)
E41 – 4.e3 c5 (includes Hübner Variation)
E42 – 4.e3 c5 5.Ne2 (Rubinstein Variation,
Romanishin–Psakhis Variation via 5...b6 6.a3
Ba5)
E43 – 4.e3 b6 (includes Dutch Variation, Keres
Variation)
E44 – 4.e3 b6 5.Ne2 (includes American Vari-
ation, 5...Bb7 Variation)
E45 – 4.e3 b6 5.Ne2 Ba6 (Fischer Variation)
E46 – 4.e3 0-0 (includes Reshevsky Variation)
E47 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3
E48 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 (includes Modern
Variation)
E49 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3
E50 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3
E51 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5
E52 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 b6 (Classical
Fianchetto/Tal Variation)
E53 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 (includes
Averbakh Variation)
E54 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 dxc4
8.Bxc4 (includes Karpov Variation, Bronstein
Variation, Smyslov Variation)
E55 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 dxc4
8.Bxc4 Nbd7 (Parma Variation)
E56 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6
(includes Larsen Variation)
E57 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6
8.a3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 cxd4
E58 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6
8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 (includes Khasin Variation)
189
E59 – 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6
8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 (includes Main
Variation)
8.11.7 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
8.11.8 References
[1] Hansen, Carsten (2002). The Nimzo-Indian: 4 e3. Gam-
bit Publications Ltd. ISBN 1-901983-58-7.
[2] Chess Life, June 1991, Opening Forum, Edmar Mednis
[3] Kasparov–Kramnik Tilburg 1997
[4] www.chessgames.com
[5] Gambit Guide to the Bogo-Indian, Steffen Pedersen,
Gambit Chess, 1999, ISBN 1-901983-04-8
[6] List over Botvinnik–Tal games chessgames.com
[7] Offbeat Nimzo-Indian, Chris Ward. ch. 8 (Very Rare
Fourth Moves for White)
8.11.9 Further reading
• Kosten, Tony (1998). Mastering the Nimzo-Indian.
B. T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-8383-0.
• Yakovich, Yuri (2004). Play The 4 f3 Nimzo-
Indian. Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-904600-
16-9.
• Dearing, Edward (2005). Play the Nimzo-Indian.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-403-5.
• Ward, Chris (2005). Offbeat Nimzo-Indian. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 1-85744-369-1.
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270-
3.
• Raphael, Michael W. (2010). ReViewing Chess:
Nimzo-Indian, Volumes 99.1–109.1. Amazon Kin-
dle.
8.12 Bogo-Indian Defence
The Bogo-Indian Defence is a chess opening charac-
terised by the moves:
190 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

1. d4 Nf6 • Simply retreating the bishop by means of 4...Be7 is

2. c4 e6 also possible; Black benefits from losing a tempo
since White’s dark-square bishop is misplaced at d2.
3. Nf3 Bb4+ The line is somewhat passive, but solid.

The position arising after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 is common.

The traditional move for White here is 3.Nc3, threaten-
ing to set up a big pawn centre with 4.e4. However, 3.Nf3
is often played instead as a way of avoiding the Nimzo-
Indian Defence (which would follow after 3.Nc3 Bb4).
After 3.Nf3, Black usually plays 3...b6 (the Queen’s In-
dian Defence) or 3...d5 (leading to the Queen’s Gam-
bit Declined), but can instead play 3...Bb4+, the Bogo-
Indian, named after Efim Bogoljubov. This opening is
not as popular as the Queen’s Indian, but is seen occa-
sionally at all levels.
The Bogo-Indian is classified as E11 by the Monticelli Trap
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO).
This opening gives rise to the Monticelli Trap.
4.Nbd2
4.Nbd2 is an alternative aiming to acquire the bishop for
the knight or forcing Black’s bishop to retreat. The down-
side is that the knight is developed to a square where
it blocks the bishop, and d2 is a less active square than
c3. The line is described in the Gambit Guide as “ambi-
tious”. Black’s most common replies are 4...b6, 4...0-0,
and 4...d5.

8.12.1 Variations
8.12.2 See also
White has three viable moves to meet the check. 4.Nc3 is
a transposition to the Kasparov Variation of the Nimzo- • List of chess openings
Indian, therefore the main independent variations are
4.Bd2 and 4.Nbd2. • List of chess openings named after people

4.Bd2 8.12.3 References

4.Bd2 is the most common line, the bishop on b4 is now Notes

threatened and Black needs to decide what to do about it.
[1] Pedersen mentions Andersson’s utilization of this line,
• The simplest is to trade off the bishop by means of noting he draws a large majority of the time, however
4...Bxd2+; this line is not particularly popular, but Checkpoint Chesscafe.com, see Hansen’s review of the
Bogo-Indian CD, which notes that this is not always an
has been played frequently by the Swedish grand-
attempt to merely draw.
master Ulf Andersson, often as a drawing line.[1]

• 4...Qe7 This is called Nimzovich variation, defend- Bibliography

ing the bishop, and deferring the decision of what to
do until later is the most common. 5. g3 Nc6 and • Steffen Pedersen (1999). Gambit Guide to the Bogo
the Nimzovich variation main line continues 6. Nc3 Indian. Gambit. ISBN 1-901983-04-8.
Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 0-0 9. Bg2 d6 10. d5
Nd8 11. dxe6 Nxe6 and the position is equal. An-
other alternative is 6. Bg2 Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 d6 8. 8.12.4 Further reading
0-0 a5 9. e4 e5 10. d5 Nb8 11. Ne1 0-0 12. Nd3
Na6 and the position is equal. • Taulbut, Shaun (1995). The New Bogo-Indian.
Cadogan Books. ISBN 978-1-85744-026-3.
• David Bronstein tried the sharper alternative 4...a5
grabbing space on the queenside at the cost of struc-
tural weaknesses.
8.13 Old Indian Defense
• A more modern line is 4...c5, after 5.Bxb4 cxb4,
Black’s pawns are doubled, and a pawn has been The Old Indian Defense is a chess opening defined by
pulled away from the centre, but the b4 pawn can the moves:
also be annoying for White since it takes the c3-
square away from the knight. In fact, one of White’s
major alternatives is 6.a3, trading off this pawn at 1. d4 Nf6
once. 2. c4 d6
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP
This opening is distinguished from the King’s Indian De-
fense by Black developing his king’s bishop on e7 rather
than the fianchetto at g7. Mikhail Chigorin pioneered this
defense late in his career.
The Old Indian is considered sound, though developing
the bishop at e7 is less active than the fianchetto, and it has 8.14 Kieninger Trap
never attained the popularity of the King’s Indian. Some
King’s Indian players will use the Old Indian to avoid cer- The Budapest Gambit (or Budapest Defence) is a chess
tain anti-King’s Indian systems, such as the Sämisch and opening that begins with the moves:
Averbakh variations.
The opening is classified in the Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings (ECO) with the codes A53–A55.
8.13.1 Main line: 3.Nc3 e5
The Main line is 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. e4; White can
also play 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+, but despite the displace-
ment of Black’s king, this has long been known to offer
no advantage, e.g. 5...Kxd8 6.Nf3 Nfd7!, with Black of-
ten following up with some combination of c6, Kd8–c7,
a5, Na6 and f6. Black’s position is solid and his piece co-
ordination is good; White’s pawn exchange in the center
has allowed Black equal space and freed the f8-bishop.
5... Be7 6. Be2 0-0 7. 0-0 c6 8. Re1 (or 8.Be3) and
White stands slightly better.
8.13.2 Janowski Variation: 3.Nc3 Bf5
The Janowski Variation, 3. Nc3 Bf5, was first intro-
duced by Dawid Janowski in the 1920s. The idea behind
the variation is that 3...Bf5 prevents White from imme-
diately grabbing space with 4.e4. The variation did not
gain much popularity until the 1980s. Several top-level
players have employed the line multiple times, including
Mikhail Tal, Bent Larsen, Florin Gheorghiu, and Kamran
Shirazi.
8.13.3 3.Nf3
This is also reached by 2.Nf3 d6 3.c4. De Firmian sug-
gests 3...Bg4. 3...c6 and 3...Bf5 are also possible. 3...g6
will likely transpose to the King’s Indian Defence, and
3...Nbd7 4.Nc3 to the Main line.
8.13.4 See also
• List of chess openings
8.13.5 Further reading
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau- 8.14.1 History
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270- In a Chess Notes feature article, Edward Winter showed
3. that the origins of this opening are not yet entirely
191
• Pickett, L. (1984). The Old Indian Renewed.
Nottingham: The Chess Player. ISBN 978-
0906042533.
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e5
Despite an early debut in 1896, the Budapest Gambit re-
ceived attention from leading players only after a win as
Black by Grandmaster Milan Vidmar over Akiba Rubin-
stein in 1918. It enjoyed a rise in popularity in the early
1920s, but nowadays is rarely played at the top level. It
experiences a lower percentage of draws than other main
lines, but also a lower overall performance for Black.
After 3.dxe5 Black can try the Fajarowicz variation
3...Ne4 which concentrates on the rapid development of
the pieces, but the most common move is 3...Ng4 with
three main possibilities for White. The Adler variation
4.Nf3 sees White seeking a spatial advantage in the centre
with his pieces, notably the important d5-square. The
Alekhine variation 4.e4 gives White an important spatial
advantage and a strong pawn centre. The Rubinstein vari-
ation 4.Bf4 leads to an important choice for White, after
4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+, between 6.Nbd2 and 6.Nc3. The
reply 6.Nbd2 brings a positional game in which White
enjoys the bishop pair and tries to break through on the
queenside, while 6.Nc3 keeps the material advantage of
a pawn at the cost of a weakening of the white pawn
structure. Black usually looks to have an aggressive game
(many lines can shock opponents that do not know the
theory) or cripple White’s pawn structure.
The Budapest Gambit contains several specific strategic
themes. After 3.dxe5 Ng4, there is a battle over White’s
extra pawn on e5, which Black typically attacks with
...Nc6 and (after ...Bc5 or ...Bb4+) ...Qe7, while White
often defends it with Bf4, Nf3, and sometimes Qd5. In
the 4.Nf3 variation the game can evolve either with Black
attacking White’s kingside with manoeuvres of rook lifts,
or with White attacking Black’s kingside with the push
f2–f4, in which case Black reacts in the centre against
the e3-pawn. In numerous variations the move c4–c5 al-
lows White to gain space and to open prospects for his
light-square bishop. For Black, the check Bf8–b4+ often
allows rapid development.
192
elucidated.[1] The first known game with the Budapest
Gambit is Adler–Maróczy (played in Budapest in 1896).
This game already featured some key aspects of the gam-
bit, such as active play for the black pieces, and White
making the typical mistake of moving the queen too early.
As the player of the white pieces was not a strong player,
the new opening went unnoticed apart from the local
experts who had witnessed the game. The Hungarians
István Abonyi, Zsigmond Barász and Gyula Breyer fur-
ther developed the opening. Abonyi played it in 1916
against the Dutch surgeon Johannes Esser in a small tour-
nament in Budapest. The Austrian player Josef Emil Kre-
jcik played it against Helmer in Vienna in 1917. Carl
Schlechter published an optimistic analysis of the gambit
in the Deutsche Schachzeitung.[2][3][4]
Tartakower, a practitioner of the Budapest Gambit
The first use of the opening against a world-class player
was at Berlin in April 1918, a double round-robin
tournament with four players: Akiba Rubinstein, Carl
Schlechter, Jacques Mieses and Milan Vidmar. Vidmar
had to play Black in the first round against Rubinstein,
then ranked the fourth best player in the world with a very
positional style.[5] At a loss for what to play, he sought
advice from his friend Abonyi, who showed him the Bu-
dapest Gambit and the main ideas the Hungarian players
had found. Vidmar followed Abonyi’s advice and beat
Rubinstein convincingly in just 24 moves.[6] This victory
so heartened Vidmar that he went on to win the tourna-
ment, while Rubinstein was so demoralised by this defeat
that he lost another game against Mieses and drew a third
one against Schlechter in the same opening.[2][7]
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
After this tournament, the gambit finally began to be
taken seriously. Top players like Savielly Tartakower and
Siegbert Tarrasch started to play it. Schlechter published
in 1918 the monograph Die budapester Verteidigung des
Damengambits,[8] which can be considered the first book
on this opening. The gambit reached its peak of pop-
ularity (around five Budapest Gambits for every thou-
sand games played) around 1920,[9] so much so that many
White players adopted the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 to
avoid it.[10][11]
The leading exponents of 1.d4 started to look for reliable
antidotes. Alexander Alekhine showed how White could
get a strong attack with 4.e4 in his games against Ilya Ra-
binovich (Baden-Baden 1925) and Adolf Seitz (Hastings
1925–26). But a few weeks later a theme tournament
on the Budapest Gambit was held, in Budapest, and the
result was 14½–21½ in Black’s favor. Another tourna-
ment in Semmering the same year saw Alekhine losing
to Karl Gilg in his pet line with White against the gambit,
so that the e4-line had a mixed reputation.[10] Meanwhile,
more positional plans were also developed for White. Ru-
binstein showed how White could get a small positional
advantage with 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2, an as-
sessment still valid today. The possibility 6.Nc3 was also
considered attractive, as structural weaknesses were not
valued as much as a material advantage of one pawn in
those days. By the end of the 1920s, despite the inven-
tion of the highly original Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 in
1928, the Budapest Gambit was considered theoretically
dubious.[12]
This assessment was left unchanged for decades, as few
players at the highest level used the Budapest Gambit and
information about games from lesser players could not
easily be found. During that time, various responses were
developed against the 4.Bf4 line; these included 4...g5,
invented by István Abonyi, further developed by the mas-
ters Bakonyi and Drimer. The master Kaposztas showed
that even when White succeeded in his positional plan,
it only meant for Black a worse endgame with drawish
tendencies.[notes 1] Two pawn sacrifices were also intro-
duced in the variation with 6.Nbd2 (still in the 4.Bf4
line), based on pawn pushes d7–d6 or f7–f6 and a quick
attack against b2.[13]
The Budapest Gambit saw a short-lived revival in 1984–
85 when Chess Informant included three games (as many
as in the previous fifteen years), all played at a high
level of competition, and all won by Black.[14] But White
players found reinforcements and even invented a line
with 4.e3 and 5.Nh3.[15] In the 21st century, despite
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov's successful efforts to rehabili-
tate the line 4.Bf4 g5, the Budapest Gambit almost never
appears at the highest level.[16][17] Its most recent appear-
ance was when Richard Rapport defeated Boris Gelfand
with Black using the opening in round 2 of the 2014 Tata
Steel Chess competition.[18]
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP 193

8.14.2 Performance White builds up an imposing pawn centre

In the database of the website ChessGames.com, the Bu- White has a strong pawn centre.
dapest Gambit scores 28.9% Black wins, 44.1% White
wins and 27.1% draws. The percentage of draws is es-
In the Alekhine variation White does not try to defend his
pecially low compared to mainstream alternatives such e5-pawn and keep his material advantage, but instead he
as 2...e6 (43.7% draws) or 2...g6 (37% draws). This
concentrates on building an imposing pawn centre. This
opening gives more chance to win for both opponents, brings him good prospects of a space advantage that may
although the percentage of Black wins is still lower than
serve as a basis for a future attack on the kingside. How-
the alternative 2...c5. In the main line 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 ever, the extended pawn centre has its drawbacks, as Lalic
the percentage of Black wins already falls to 21.1%, lower explains: “White must invest some valuable tempi in pro-
than the main lines after 2...e6 or 2...g6.[19] tecting his pawn structure, which allows Black to seize the
The Budapest Gambit has never been widely used as best squares for his minor pieces with excellent prospects
Black by the top-ten chessplayers. Richard Réti used it for counterplay against the white centre.”[36]
five times in the period 1919–26 when he was among Hence in this variation Black lets White build his pawn
the ten best players in the world,[20] but he scored only centre only to undermine it later, a playing philosophy
1½ points.[21] Savielly Tartakower used it four times espoused in the teachings of the hypermodern school.
in 1928 when he was the eighth-best player in the The strategic themes are similar to the ones that can be
world,[22] including thrice in one tournament (Bad Kissin- found in other openings like the Four Pawns Attack, the
gen 1928) but he scored only ½ point against world- Alekhine Defence or the Grünfeld Defence.[36]
class opposition: Bogoljubov then ranked number four
in the world,[23] Capablanca ranked number two,[24] and
Rubinstein ranked number seven.[5][25] Rudolf Spielmann Budapest rook
used it thrice in 1922–23 when he was about number
9–12 in the world,[26] with a win against Euwe but de- The “Budapest rook” is a manoeuvre, introduced by the
feats against Yates and Sämisch.[27] Nigel Short played IM Dolfi Drimer in 1968,[37] with which Black develops
the gambit twice in the years 1992–93 when he was num- the a8 rook aggressively along the sixth rank using the
ber 7–11,[28] scoring only ½ points against Karpov (then moves a7–a5 and the rook lift Ra8–a6–h6.[38] For exam-
ranked number two[29] ) and Ivanchuk (then ranked num- ple, this can happen in the Adler variation after the move
ber three[30] ).[31] Recently, Mamedyarov used it twice in sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3
2004 (scoring 1½ with a win against Van Wely) when Nc6 6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3 a5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nc3
he was not already among the top-players, and six times Ra6 11.b3 Rh6.
in 2008 when he was about number 6–14; he scored
five points with wins against former world champion
Kramnik (then ranked number three[32] ), and grandmas-
ters Tkachiev and Eljanov, but all six games took place in
rapid or blitz events.[33]
Nicolas Giffard summarises the modern assessment of the
Budapest Gambit:[34]

[It is] an old opening, seldom used by

champions without having fallen in disgrace.
While White has several methods to get a small
advantage, this defence is strategically sound.
Black gets a good pawn structure and possibil-
ities of attack on the kingside. His problems
generally come from the white pressure on the
d-column and a lack of space to manoeuvre his
pieces.

Boris Avrukh writes, “The Budapest Gambit is almost a

respectable opening; I doubt there is a refutation. Even The rook lift of the Budapest rook, along with an attacking queen
manoeuvre.
in the lines where White manages to keep an extra pawn,
[35]
Black always has a lot of play for it.”
The rook is then used to support a piece attack against
White’s castled King.[39] Black can easily get several
8.14.3 Strategic and tactical themes pieces around the white king, notably a rook to h6, a
queen to h4 and a knight on g4. The queen’s arrival
194 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of a white Black is later compelled to exchange Bxd2, that is advan-
knight on the f3-square (that would otherwise cover the tageous to White who thereby gains the bishop pair.[43]
h4-square) and of a black knight on the f6-square (that Besides, in some situations the Bb4 could be as misplaced
would block the way for the black queen).[39] If White as the Nd2.[43] Finally, if White has to play Bd2, then
tries to defend with h2–h3, this may allow the Bc8 to be Black should exchange the bishops only if White is forced
sacrificed at h3 in order to open the h-file.[39] to recapture with the Nb1, as a recapture by the Qd1
The Bc5 may not seem particularly useful in this attack, would still allow the Nb1 to reach the d5-square through
but by eyeing e3 it makes it difficult for White to play Nb1–c3–d5.
f4 to chase away the black knight;[40] furthermore, the For example in the Alekhine variation, after 1.d4 Nf6
attack on e3 is sometimes intensified with major pieces 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6 6.Nf3, the move
doubling on the e-file. Besides, the Bc5 can sometimes be 6...Bb4+ (see diagram at right) is good because White
recycled to the b8–h2 diagonal via Bc5–a7–b8, to apply has no good reply apart from 7.Nc3. Indeed, 7.Nbd2?
still more pressure on h2.[41] It can also stay on the a7–g1 just loses a pawn after 7...Nxf4 whereas 7.Bd2?! Qe7!
diagonal to put pressure on f2, if White pushes e3–e4 at causes White great problems: both the pawn f4 and e4
some stage. pawns are attacked, and 8.Bxb4 Qxb4+ results in a dou-
[44]
The “Budapest rook” was an invigorating innovation of ble attack against b2 and f4. After 7.Nc3 Black can
the 1980s, and gave the gambit new life. However, in- either answer with 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 or with 7...Qf6, si-
[notes 2]
conveniences arise from delaying d7–d6 in order to allow multaneously attacking c3 and f4.
the lift: the light-square bishop has to wait a long time to
develop, and any attack on the Bc5 is potentially annoy- Pressure against the e4-square and the e3-pawn
ing for Black (since it means either closing the sixth rank
with ...d6/...b6, abandoning the active a7–g1 diagonal, or
blocking the rook when deployed to a7). This, in addition
to the risk of awkwardness in the king side (a knight on f5
will fork the Rh6 and the Qh4) and the single-mindedness
of Black’s plan (with nothing to fall back on if the direct
attack is repelled), has made some revisit the old lines,
where it is instead the king’s rook that is developed to h6.
The queen’s rook can then be retained on the queenside,
and will be well-placed if the b-file opens as a result of
Black’s Bc5 being exchanged and recaptured with a b6
pawn.

Advantages of ...Bb4+

Alekhine variation: here 6...Bb4+ is considered a good

move.

In most variations Black has the opportunity to play

Bb4+, a move whose advisability depends on White’s Pressure against the e3-pawn
possible answers. If White blocks the check with Nb1–
c3 then Black should capture the knight only if White In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after White has
is forced to take back with the pawn, after which the moved f2–f4, the e3-pawn becomes a backward pawn on
isolated, doubled pawns are a positional advantage for an open file. Black can then apply pressure on the e-file
Black that fully compensates the loss of the bishop pair, in general, against the e3-pawn and the e4-square in par-
and even the gambitted pawn. Due to its immunity to ticular. Typical moves in this plan would include the ma-
pawn attacks, the c5-square may be used by Black as a noeuvre Ne5–d7–f6, followed by putting the heavy pieces
stronghold for his pieces. Piece exchanges can be good on the e-file with Rf8–e8 and Qd8–e7 (see diagram at
for Black even if he is a pawn down, as he can hope to ex- right).[45] The Bc5 is already well placed to pressure the
ploit the crippled pawn structure in the ending.[42] On the e3-pawn. Depending on circumstances, the Bc8 may be
other hand, if White can recapture with a piece, the trade involved either on b7 or on f5, in both cases to assert con-
on c3 typically concedes the bishop pair for insufficient trol over the central e4-square.
compensation. This plan is viable only if certain conditions are met. The
If White is compelled to play Nb1–d2, it is sometimes a d7-square must be available for the Ne5, so that it can
minuscule positional concession, as it makes it harder for later transfer to f6. White should also not be able to eas-
this knight to reach its ideal square d5.[43] However, if ily advance the e3-pawn to e4, where it would be ade-
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP 195

quately defended by the Nc3 and a possible Bf3.[45] Fi- Kieninger Trap
nally, White should not have the time to launch a quick
attack on Black’s castled position with the pawn thrust 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4
f4–f5–f6. 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.axb4 Nd3#
The Kieninger Trap. If White plays 8.axb4 then 8...Nd3
mate.

The Kieninger Trap is named after Georg Kieninger who

used it in an offhand game against Godai at Vienna in
Breakthrough with the c4–c5 push 1925.[50] It occurs in the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4
4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3. The
Bb4 is attacked but Black does not have to move it for
Rubinstein variation after 10.Qxd2. White is ready to the moment, and instead both regains the gambit pawn
push the c4-pawn. For example, if 10...0-0?! then 11.c5! and sets a trap with 7...Ngxe5 (see diagram at right). Su-
perficially, White seems to win a piece with 8.axb4??,
but that would be falling into the Kieninger Trap because
In the main lines the pawn push c4–c5 often brings posi-
it would allow 8...Nd3 mate; even after the exchange
tional gains to White. In the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4
8.Nxe5 Nxe5, the threat of ...Nd3 mate remains and in-
4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3, af-
directly defends the Bb4 from capture.
ter 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 (see di-
agram at right) White gets the bishop pair and a space A rare variant has also occurred in a miniature in the
advantage. In order to build up on these potential advan- Fajarowicz variation, after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
tages, the most common plan is to perform a minority 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Qa4+
attack on the queenside, with the goal of performing Nc6 8.a3 Nc5 9.dxc7 Qe7! when White, trying to save
the pawn advance c4–c5 in favourable conditions.[46] his queen, fell into 10.Qd1 Nd3 mate.[51]
This push can yield several advantages to White: it en-
hances the prospects of the light-square bishop, it cre-
ates a half-open file to attack with the rooks, and it cre- 8.14.4 Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3
ates an isolated, backward pawn on d6 after the exchange
c5xd6.[46] The Adler variation 4.Nf3

For example, in the diagram on the right, after the natural

but mistaken 10...0-0?! White can immediately realise
his strategic goal with 11.c5![47] Then if Black accepts the
temporary sacrifice after 11...Qxc5 12.Rc1 Qd6 13.Qxd6
cxd6 14.Rd1 White gets his pawn back and has created a
weak pawn in d7, while if Black declines the pawn he
has difficulties in developing his queenside (for exam-
ple 11...d6 might be followed by 12.cxd6 Qxd6 13.Qxd6
cxd6 and the pawn on d6 is weak).[47] Therefore Black
generally tries to hinder the c4–c5 push with moves like
d7–d6, b7–b6 or Rf8–d8 (if this creates a hidden vis-à-
vis between the Rd8 and the Qd2).[46]
Similarly, in the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 with
4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3, after 6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 White
is saddled with doubled pawns in c3 and c4 that limit the
scope of his bishop pair. Hence the push c4–c5 can be
used to free the light-squared bishop and disrupt Black’s
position.[48]
In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after 4...Bc5 5.e3
Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3 Ngxe5 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2
Nxf3+ Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Qd5 Qe7 14.Ne4 Ba7
White has good reasons to push 15.c5.[49] This move
would close the diagonal of the Ba7. It would make it
harder for Black to develop the Bc8 as pawn pushes like
b7–b6 or d7–d6 may be answered respectively by cxb6 or
cxd6, creating a weak pawn for Black. Also, the prospects
of the Be2 would be enhanced.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3
The Adler variation is named after the game Adler–
Maróczy, played at the 1896 Budapest tournament.[52][53]
White is ready to return the e5-pawn in order to develop
his pieces on their best squares, i.e. the d5-square for the
Nb1, the f3-square for the Ng1 and the a1–h8 diagonal
for the Bc1.
Black can try the minor line 4...Nc6 that delays the de-
velopment of its dark-square bishop, to develop it along
the a1–h8 diagonal instead of the a3–f8 diagonal, de-
pending on the circumstances. But the main line is
4...Bc5 to attack the f2-pawn, forcing 5.e3, blocking in
White’s bishop on c1, so that after 5...Nc6 White will
not have enough pieces to protect his e5-pawn in the long
run. Placing the bishop on the c5-square also has subtler
points, as Tseitlin explains:[54]
At first sight the bishop on c5 lacks
prospects, being held at bay by the pawn on
e3, and is insecure in view of the threat to ex-
change it by Nc3–a4/e4. In reality, posting the
bishop here has a deep strategic significance.
It holds up the advance of the e- and the f-
pawns (assuming the white bishop will go to
b2), and thereby secures e5 as a future knight
outpost, which in turn restricts the activity of
196 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

both White’s bishops. As to the exchanging 11.0-0 when 11...Ra6 would be met with 12.Nd5 Rh6
threat, the bishop may conveniently retreat on 13.e4 immediately attacking the maveric rook. So Black
a7 or f8, or even in some cases remain on c5 usually opts for 11...d6, forgetting about the Ra8–a6–h6
with support from a pawn on b6. manoeuvre. After 12.Bb2 ECO considers the situation as
favourable to White, but Tseitlin thinks Black still has a
After 5...Nc6, is 6.a3 a promising queenside attack, or lot of possibilities (e.g. the other rook lift Re8–e6–h6),
just a loss of tempo? so that “the struggle still lies ahead”.[59]

An important theoretical decision for White is to choose Line 4...Bc5 without a2–a3
whether to play a2–a3. While this move protects the b4
square and threatens the pawn advance b2–b4, it encour- After 9...Nxe5, shall White attack in the centre or on the
ages Black’s rook lift Ra8–a6–h6. As Lalic puts it: kingside?

It was not so long ago that 8.a3, with the ob-

vious intention of expanding with b2–b4, was
the standard move. However, after Black re-
sponds with the logical a7–a5, it became ap-
parent in tournament practice that the inclusion
of these moves is in fact in Black’s favour, as it
gives his queen’s rook access into play via the
a6-square.
Line 4...Bc5 with a2–a3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.a3
After 6.a3
The opinion of the move 6.a3 has gradually shifted from
being the main continuation to being a possible continu-
ation, then down to its present status of being considered
a mistake. The threat to push b2–b4 must be taken seri-
ously by Black, who typically answers 6...a5. But in the
1980s it was discovered that the push a7–a5 was actually a
very useful one for Black, as it allows the Ra8 to be devel-
oped along the sixth rank. Meanwhile, the push a2–a3 is
less useful for White, as he will not be able to easily push
b2–b4. As Tseitlin puts it, “the point is that 6...a5 fits into
the plan of attacking White’s kingside, whereas 6.a3 does
little in the way of defending it”.[55] Thus if White does
not find a clear way to make good use of his move a2–a3,
it may turn out to be a critical waste of tempo.[56][57]
After the topical moves 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 Re8 9.Nc3
Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 Black has regained the in-
vested pawn. White has a space advantage in the cen-
tre and can initiate pressure here or on the queenside by
pawn pushes like b3–b4 and c4–c5 (possibly supported
by a knight on the d5-square). Meanwhile, the white
king lacks defenders so Black can start a pieces-driven
attack with the rook lift 11...Ra6 (see section "Budapest
rook"). The stem game continued with 12.Nd5 Rh6
13.Bd4 d6 14.Ra2 Bf5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 and Black won
in 26 moves.[58] To avoid such an unfavourable devel-
opment, White players have changed the move-order to
keep the Bc1 on its original square as long as possible, so
that it can help the defence. Thus, the typical move-order
became 7.b3 0-0 8.Nc3 Re8 9.Be2 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6
By refraining from the advance a2-a3 White tries to gain
a tempo on the lines of the previous section, making it
more difficult for Black to initiate the Re8–e6–h6 or Ra8–
a6–h6 lifts. After the moves 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3
Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 White has tried two different plans.
The older one sees White attack in the centre with moves
like b2–b3, Bc1–b2, Qd1–d5, Nc3–e4 and c4–c5. White
gets an important space advantage in the centre, but Black
can attack the kingside with rook lifts. After 10.b3 a5
White can try to capture the Bc5 with 11.Na4 or 11.Ne4,
one point being that the retreat 11...Ba7 would lock the
Ra8 because Black has not played Ra8–a6 already. Lalic
still thinks 11...Ba7 is the right move after 11.Ne4 due to
the importance of the a7–g1 diagonal, but Black can also
reroute the bishop with 11...Bf8 and “White has no ob-
vious path to even a minute advantage”.[60] After 11.Na4
Black can also simply react by 11...b6 when the loss of
the bishop pair is compensated by the semi-open b-file
and improved control of the central squares.[61] Tseitlin
considers that after the exchange on c5 Black has the bet-
ter position.[62] Hence the main continuation is 11.Bb2,
keeping the knight jumps for later. Then the most com-
mon plan for Black is a rook lift: the plan Ra8–a6–
h6 was tried in the much-commented game Åkesson–
Tagnon (Berlin Open 1984). Black duly won, but after
the game continuation 11...Ra6 12.Qd5! Qe7 13.Ne4
Ba7 14.c5 Rg6 15.Rac1 Bb8 16.f4 authors do not agree
on which side had the advantage. Borik and Tseitlin
both consider White to have a positional advantage, with
Tseitlin recommending instead 15...Nc6!, with danger-
ous threats.[63][64] However Lalic writes of 15...Bb8, “it
is true that the bishop pair looks a bit pathetic lined up on
the back rank just now, but there is no way to stop them
breaking out later”.[41]
The second plan for White, unveiled by Spassky in 1990,
aims at a kingside blitzkrieg with moves like Kg1–h1, f2–
f4, Be2–d3 and Qd1–h5. In the original game Black did
not fathom White’s idea, so that after 10.Kh1 a5?! 11.f4
Nc6 12.Bd3 d6 13.Qh5! h6 14.Rf3 Black’s pieces were
ill-placed to counter White’s attack.[65] A more princi-
pled plan for Black is to react in the centre, specifically
targeting the backward e3-pawn and e4-square. After
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP
10.Kh1 d6 11.f4 Nd7! 12.Bd3 Nf6 13.Qf3 Ng4 14.Nd1
f5! and Black has succeeded in inhibiting White’s e3–e4
expansion .[66] As Black was doing fine with the 11.f4
move-order, White has been searching for a new path
with 10.Kh1 d6 11.Na4!? b6! 12.Bd2 a5 13.Nxc5 bxc5
14.f4 Nd7 15.Bf3 when Jeremy Silman prefers White.[67]
White has even dared the immediate 10.f4 Nc6 11.Bd3
when it is extremely dangerous for Black to take the of-
fered e3-pawn, as White gets a fierce kingside attack for
free.[57]
8.14.5 Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4
The Rubinstein variation 4.Bf4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4
This move sequence is called the “Rubinstein variation”
in reference to the famous game Rubinstein–Vidmar
(Berlin 1918) when 4.Bf4 was first employed.[53][68] Var-
ious authors consider this move to be the most dangerous
for Black.[57] It aims to answer 4...Bc5 with 5.e3 with-
out blocking the Bc1, contrary to what happens in the
Adler variation 4.Nf3. Another point is that in the Adler
variation White faces the risk of a strong attack against
his kingside (see section "Budapest rook"), while in the
4.Bf4 variation this is seldom the case because the Bf4
is well placed to protect White’s kingside. On the other
hand, the early development of the bishop means that
White is more vulnerable to the check Bf8–b4+, the b2-
pawn is not defended, and in some rare cases the Bf4 can
become subject to attack.
Apart from the sideline 4...g5, the main line continues
with both players developing their pieces around the e5-
pawn with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ when White has an im-
portant choice between the moves 6.Nc3 and 6.Nbd2,
each leading to extremely different play. With 6.Nc3
White acquiesces to the breakup of his queenside pawns
in return for a material advantage of one pawn, the bishop
pair and active play in the centre. With 6.Nbd2 White
gives back the gambited pawn to keep a healthy pawn
structure and acquire the bishop pair. After 6.Nbd2 Qe7
White generally plays 7.a3 to force the immediate ex-
change of bishop for knight, gaining the bishop pair, a
spatial advantage and chances for a minority attack on
the queenside. White can also try 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 to
win a tempo over the 7.a3 variation, though he may end
up with the exchange at d2 made in less favourable cir-
cumstances, or not at all. The maverick gambit 6...f6 also Line 6.Nc3
exists.[69]
Sideline 4...g5
After 4...g5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5
197
The sideline 4...g5!? was not well regarded at the end
of the 20th century.[notes 3] It weakens several squares—
particularly f5 and h5—as they cannot be covered by the
g-pawn any more. White can try to exploit these weak-
nesses with the manoeuvres Bf4–d2–c3 (pressure along
the diagonal a1–h8), Ng1–e2–g3–h5 (pressure against
the squares f6 and g7) and h2–h4 (to open the h-file).
Nonetheless, the 4...g5 line has found new supporters in
recent years thanks to black wins against both 5.Bg3 and
5.Bd2.[70][71]
For years, the reaction 5.Bg3 was not well considered, be-
cause the retreat does not make the most out of Black’s
provocative fourth move; as Tseitlin points out, “the
bishop is in danger of staying out of play for a long
time”.[72] But later Lalic found that 5.Bg3 was “just as
effective” as 5.Bd2.[73] Black concentrates on capturing
the e5-pawn while White tries to get an advantage from
the weakening of the black kingside. After the typical
moves 5...Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5
9.e3 d6 Lalic considers the best try to be 10.c5!, sacri-
ficing a pawn to weaken Black’s control on the e5-square
and expose the black king further. White has also tried
to quickly open the h-file with 7.h4 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5
9.e3 but after 9...g4! Black succeeds in keeping the file
closed.[74]
The alternative to 5.Bg3 is 5.Bd2 to place the bishop on
the wide-open diagonal a1–h8, after which “White can
expect a safe advantage”.[73] Then according to Lalic, de-
laying the recapture with 5...Bg7 6.Bc3 Nc6 7.e3 Ngxe5
is not correct as White can gain an advantage by 8.h4 or
8.Qh5,[75] so the immediate 5...Nxe5 is better. For some
time 6.Bc3 was well considered because Black had prob-
lems dealing with various positional threats, but the cor-
rect way for Black was found in 5...Nxe5 6.Bc3 Qe7 7.e3
Rg8! 8.Nf3 Nbc6 9.Be2 d6 10.Nd4 Bd7 11.b4 g4 with
good counterplay for Black on the kingside.[76] White’s
efforts then switched to 6.Nf3 to open the e-file, some-
thing that Black cannot really avoid, as 6...Bg7 7.Nxe5
Bxe5 8.Bc3 would leave an advantage to White.[75] For
example 8...Qe7 9.Bxe5 Qxe5 10.Nc3 d6 11.e3 and
Black is at a loss for an equalising line,[77] White’s ad-
vantage consisting in his ability to install his knight on
the strong d5-square and to attack the weakened Black’s
kingside with the advance h2–h4. It is better for Black to
continue with 6...Nxf3+ 7.exf3 when both 7...h5? and
7...Bg7 would fail to 8.Qe2+, so Black must try 7...d6
8.Qe2+ Be6 instead.[75]
Black must choose between 8...Qa3 and 8...f6.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+
6.Nc3
This is the only important line in the Budapest where
Black is not ensured of regaining his sacrificed pawn.
198 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

Black does best to immediately exchange the Nc3 with
6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 as otherwise White gets a small posi-
tional advantage simply by avoiding the doubled pawns
(see the section "Advantages of ...Bb4+").[78][79] Then
Black can put pressure on the e5-pawn with 7...Qe7
when White’s only possibility to keep the pawn is 8.Qd5.
White threatens to ease the pressure with the move h2–
h3 that would force the Ng4 to the unfavourable square
h6, so Black’s only possibilities to sustain the initiative
are 8...Qa3 and 8...f6.
The line 8...Qa3 puts pressure on the white queenside
pawns, pressure that may later be intensified with Nf6–
e4. The black queen also gains access to the a5-square,
from where it puts pressure on the e1–a5 diagonal aimed
towards the white king. After 9.Rc1 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6
11.Qd2 d6 12.Nd4 0-0 we reach the position of the fa-
mous game between Rubinstein and Vidmar, when Ru-
binstein erred with 13.e3? and later lost.[80] After the
better 13.f3 the correct method for Black is to target the
c4-pawn with the regrouping Ne5/Qc5.[81] Hence Lalic
thinks 11.Qd2 is inappropriate and gives Black excellent
counterplay, and prefers 11.Qd3 or even 11.Qd1!? Af-
ter 11.Qd3 0-0 12.g3 d6 13.Bg2 Black should switch to a
materialistic mode with 13...Qxa2.[82]
In the other line 8...f6 Black does not want to decentralise
his queen and prefers to concentrate on active piece play
in the centre. After 9.exf6 Nxf6, 10.Qd1, 10.Qd2 and
10.Qd3 are all possible, but each has its drawbacks: on
d1 the queen is not developed, on d3 it is exposed to
Bc8–f5 and on d2 it is exposed to Nf6–e4. Lalic con-
siders 10.Qd3 to be the main move, qualifies 10.Qd1 as
a “respectable option”, but considers 10.Qd2 as “inaccu-
rate”. Meanwhile, Black will try to create counterplay by
attacking either the weak c4-pawn, or the kingside with
g7–g5 and h7–h5. In both cases a key possibility is the
move Nf6–e4 that centralises the knight, attacks the weak
c3-pawn, controls the c5-square and supports the g7–g5
thrust.
Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3
After 7.a3 White will win the bishop pair.
bishop to 10.b4 Bb6 11.c5, Black usually plays 9...Bxd2+
10.Qxd2.[notes 5]
After 10.Qxd2, Tseitlin explains that “opening manuals
assess this position as favourable to White on the basis of
the bishop pair. However, considering the closed nature
of the position, White faces substantial difficulties in the
realisation of this nominal advantage.”[83] Black has not
a lot of things to be proud of as there are no targets in
White’s camp, but can put up a lot of resistance thanks to
small assets. Black’s Ne5 is strongly centralised, attacks
the c4-pawn, and restricts the Bf1 from moving to the nat-
ural squares d3 and f3. Moreover, exchanging the knight
with Bxe5 is not appealing for White, since that would
mean losing the advantage of the bishop pair. Also, the
Bc8 can sometimes become better than its counterpart
the Bf1, if it makes it to the good squares b7 or c6 while
the Bf1 remains restricted by the Ne5.
This explains the most natural plans for both sides. White
will try a minority attack on the queenside, in order to in-
crease its space advantage and to create some weaknesses
in the black pawns (e.g. an isolated pawn or a backward
pawn). So White will try to use the advances b2–b4 or
c4–c5 in good conditions, supported by the queen and the
rooks on the c-file and the d-file. On the other hand, Black
will try to keep the position closed, most importantly by
keeping the c4-pawn where it is in order to keep the Bf1
at bay. This can be achieved by moves like b7–b6 and d7–
d6, and sometimes the manoeuvre Ne5–d7–f8–e6. The
first move by Black has to be 10...d6! because otherwise
White plays 11.c5! and gets a clear advantage immedi-
ately. For example 10...b6? loses a pawn to 11.Qd5 Nc6
12.Bxc7, and 10...0-0?! is bad because of 11.c5! Qxc5?
12.Rc1 Qe7 13.Rxc7 and White is winning already.[47]
International Master Timothy Taylor has suggested an al-
ternative for Black on move 9. He regards 9...Bxd2+ as
inferior, arguing that “the strong black bishop is traded
for the inoffensive knight, and white gets the long-term
advantage of the two bishops in a semi-open game”.[84]
Taylor instead advocates 9...Bc5, when Black stands well
after 10.b4 Bd4! (11.exd4?? Nd3#) 11.Rb1 d6 12.Be2
Bf5 13.Rb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 (14.exd4 Nxf4 15.Re3? Nxg2+
wins; 14.Bxd6 exd6 15.exd4 Nf4 16.g3 Bc2! wins mate-
rial) Bf6; 10.Ne4 Ng6; 10.Nb3 Bd6; or 10.Be2 d6.[85]

On the way till 10...d6 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4

4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Battle for the push c4–c5 After 10...d6 White wants
to push c4–c5 to free his light-square bishop.
The Bb4 is attacked but Black can play 7...Ngxe5 to get
the gambitted pawn back, as 8.axb4?? would allow the
Kieninger trap 8...Nd3 mate (see the section "Kieninger 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+
trap"). Now White is more or less forced to exchange 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+
a pair of knights with 8.Nxe5 Nxe5.[notes 4] White still 10.Qxd2 d6
cannot win a piece with 9.axb4?? Nd3# or 9.Bxe5?! After 10...d6! White can try (and has tried) about any
Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Qxe5, so he usually plays 9.e3 in order move that supports the aforementioned plan. In particu-
to protect the c4-pawn and defuse the mating threat, so lar, White has to choose if he wants to start active opera-
that now Black is obliged to move his Bb4. As 9...Bd6 tions on the queenside immediately (e.g. Rc1, Qc3, c5),
would misplace the bishop and 9...Ba5?? would lose the or if he wants to finish his development first (with Be2
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP
and 0-0). The immediate 11.c5!? is a possible pawn sac-
rifice in order to open some diagonals for the bishops. As
Lalic points out, “after 11...dxc5 Black’s knight on e5 has
lost its support and therefore all tactical motifs based on
Qd5 and Bb5+ must be carefully checked”.[86] White gets
a powerful attack for his pawn but nothing decisive. The
same idea can be tried with the preparatory 11.Rc1, and
after 11...0-0 12.c5!? dxc5 13.Qd5 Ng6 14.Bg3 White
should be reminded that he has not finished his devel-
opment with 14...Qf6! and a counter-attack on the b2-
pawn.[87][88] Playing Black, Svidler chose a different path
with 11...b6 but his opponent Lesiège nevertheless sacri-
ficed the pawn with 12.c5! bxc5 13.b4 0-0 14.bxc5 Bb7
15.f3 and Svilder chose to destroy his own pawn structure
with 15...dxc5!? to activate his pieces and make use of
the d-file.[89] The most popular move is 11.Be2, where
White delays his queenside play until he has achieved
castling.[90] It also gives Black more time to organise a
defence on the queenside with b7–b6, either now or after
11...0-0.
Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
After 7.e3, White concentrates on castling.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+
6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
In this variation White tries to avoid the move a2–a3 in
order to gain a tempo over the 7.a3 variation. After the
standard moves 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 followed
by 10.0-0 it is Black’s last chance to exchange the Bb4 for
the Nd2. The game will take an entirely different struc-
ture depending on whether Black gives up the bishop pair
or tries to keep it.
Lalic thinks the strategies in which Black gives up the
bishop pair (by exchanging its Bb4 for the Nd2) for noth-
ing are a mistake. He does not like the strategy to re-
treat the Bb4 in d6 either, because they are too drawish.
He recommends the strategy to retreat the bishop in c5,
and maintain its position there with the help of the a7–a5
pawn advance.[91]
Black gives up the bishop pair When Black opts for
10...Bxd2, he runs the risk to end up a tempo down over
the 7.a3 variation and to be soon unable to meet White’s
positional threats on the queenside. White can avoid the
push a2–a3 and continue with the standard plans of the
7.a3 variation.[92] However, everything is not that bad for
Black. First, to implement his plan White has to concen-
trate on development (9.Be2, 10.0-0) before he turns his
attention to the queenside. That means Black has more
time to organise his play than in the 7.a3 variation, no-
tably to attempt a blockade of the c5-square. Moreover,
as White does not put immediate pressure on Black’s po-
sition, Black is not compelled to castle rapidly and he can
keep his king in the centre for a longer time, or even castle
199
queenside. Hence Lalic note that “White has not wasted
time with a2–a3, but in fact it is not so easy to capitalise
on this extra tempo.”[93]
A possibility for Black is to develop his light-square
bishop rapidly, by prioritising the moves b7–b6 and Bc8–
b7 over castling and d7–d6. The game Solozhenkin–
Stiazhkin (Leningrad 1990) continued with 9...b6 10.0-
0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 12.c5 bxc5 13.Qa5 d6 14.Bxe5
dxe5 15.Rfc1 and Moskalenko assesses this position as
better for White;[94] Lalic suggests that 13...Ng6 is an
improvement.[95] In the game Gausel–Reite (Norwegian
Team Championship 1991), after the same 9.Be2 b6
10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 Black introduced a highly
original plan by avoiding the natural advance d7–d6, and
instead blocked a white c5-push by playing ...c5 himself.
The game continued 12.Qc3 f6 13.b4 c5!? and Lalic
was “deeply impressed by this plan, which really spoils
all of White’s fun”. The c4-pawn is never allowed to ad-
vance, so that the Be2 is durably restricted. The Bf4 is ob-
structed by the Ne5, that cannot be easily removed. The
weakness of the d7-pawn is not a worry as it can be pro-
tected by Bb7–c6 if necessary.[93]
Black keeps the bishop pair After 10.0-0 d6 11.Nb3
After 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Black can avoid the immediate
exchange of his Bb4 against the Nd2 in several ways.
The first one, resurrected and elaborated by the grand-
master Pavel Blatny, is to exchange the Bb4 for the Bf4.
This can be achieved via 10...Ng6 11.Bg3 (11.Bxc7?? d6
loses a piece) 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6. White still has
possibilities to play for an advantage due to his more ad-
vanced development, his space advantage on the queen-
side and the possibility to install his knight on the good
square d5. Taylor considers this Black’s best line, stating
that Black has not given White the bishop pair, nor weak-
ened his pawn structure, and should be able to gradually
equalize.[96]
The other possibility for Black is to keep his Bb4 as long
as possible, exchanging it against the white knight only
in favourable circumstances. A couple of attempts have
been done with this in mind, with subtle variations along
the moves a7–a5, b7–b6 and d7–d6. Against the mun-
dane 10...d6 White can continue with 11.Nb3 (see dia-
gram at right) to play on the queenside against the ex-
posed Bb4, or 11.Nb1 to recycle the knight on the ideal
d5-square. Another idea is the immediate 10...a5, to have
the d6-square for the bishop, inhibit the b2–b4 push and
have the possible a5–a4 pawn advance if the white knight
moves to b3. In the game Mikhalevski–Chabanon (Bad
Endbach 1995)[97] Black kept the bishop with 11.Nb3 a4
12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd4 Bc5 14.Nb5 d6 15.Nc3 Ng6 16.Bg3
f5 and had dynamic play.[98]
200
Gambits 5.Nbd2 d6 and 6.Nbd2 f6
The gambit 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 d6
With 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 d6 (see diagram at right) Black
wants to open the diagonal a1–h8 for his queen. Af-
ter 6.exd6 Qf6 White can react to the attack on his Bf4
in several ways, the best one being 7.Nh3 to develop a
piece and protect both the Bf4 and the f2-pawn. It also
helps that the Bf4 is still guarding the Nd2, so that af- Line 5...Nec6
ter 7...Qxb2? there is not the threat of winning the ex-
change (8...Bxd2+ would be answered by 9.Bxd2) and After 5.f4 Nec6 6.Be3
White can repel Black’s attack with 8.Rb1 Qa3 9.Rb3
Qa5 10.dxc7 Nc6 11.a3! Be7 12.e3.[99] Instead, Black
must play energetically with 7...Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Bxh3 9.g3
Bxf1 10.dxc7!? Nc6 11.Rxf1 and here Lalic recom- The Knight on c6 is safer than on g6, and is well-placed
mends 11...0-0 12.Kg2 Rfe8.[100]
The other gambit, 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 f6 7.exf6
Qxf6, is much riskier, as Black weakens his kingside
and does not open a diagonal for his Bc8. Black tries
to take advantage of the fact White has moved his dark-
squared bishop away from the queenside, leaving the b2-
pawn without protection. The correct plan for White
was shown by Gleizerov who played 8.e3 Qxb2 9.Be2
d6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nb3 Qf6 12.c5! to open the a2–g8 di-
agonal that was weakened precisely by the gambit move
6...f6. The move 11.Nb3 is not only useful to support
the c4–c5 push, but also to exchange the knight against
Black’s dark-squared bishop after a possible a2–a3 forc-
ing the retreat Bb4–c5.[101] As Lalic puts it, “I doubt if
Black has a satisfactory answer to White’s play in this
game”.[102]
8.14.6 Alekhine variation 3...Ng4 4.e4
The Alekhine variation 4.e4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4
This variation is named after Alekhine thanks to his wins
in the games Alekhine–Rabinovic (Baden Baden, 1925)
and Alekhine–Seitz (Hastings, 1926).[53][103][notes 6]
White does not try to keep its material advantage (the
e5-pawn) and concentrates on establishing a strong pawn
center and space advantage. A controversial point is
whether the typical black manoeuvre Bf8–b4–xc3 is
advantageous for Black (as it saddles White with doubled
pawns) or for White (as it reinforces his centre). Lalic
thinks both, considering 6...Bb4+ to be a bad move after
4...Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Nf3,[104] but a good one after
4...Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Be3.[105] After 4.e4 the main line
is 4...Nxe5 5.f4 when Black has an important choice
to make about where to move the Ne5. The retreat
to the queenside with 5...Nec6 is considered best,[106]
while the retreat to the kingside with 5...Ng6 is probably
playable.[107]
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
Taylor considers 4...Nxe5 inferior, recommending in-
stead a rarely played idea of Richard Réti, 4...h5!
(Taylor’s exclamation point). Then 5.Nf3 would al-
low 5...Bc5, while Taylor suggests meeting 5.Be2 with
5...Nc6! and 5.f4 with 5...Bc5 with quick development
compensating for the lost pawn. He considers the main
line to be 4...h5 5.h3 Nxe5 6.Be3 Bb4+, with good play
for Black.[108]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6
as part of a general strategy to control the central dark
squares. It can go to d4 while the other Knight can
go to c5 via a6 or d7. After 6.Nf3 Bc5 White has
difficulties castling short, because the plan to exchange
the dark-squared bishops with Bd3/Qe2/Be3 can be met
by Bg4/Nd4 to muddy the waters.[109] As Lalic points
out:[110]
White can no longer castle kingside and
will usually have to go the other way. How-
ever, this is rather slow and gives Black time to
try to undermine the white centre. To this end
Bc8–g4 often comes in handy, in order to pin
the white knight on f3 against the white queen.
Note that Black should wait until his opponent
has wasted a tempo with Qe2.
The main continuation 6.Be3 controls the a7–g1 diagonal
and is considered to be the best reply.[111] If Black wants
to contest the c5-square for his Bf8 he can try 6...Na6,[112]
but most games continue with 6...Bb4+. Here the best
reply for White is controversial.[notes 7]
After 7.Nc3 Black has the zwischenzug 7...Qh4+ 8.g3
Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qe7 so that the diagonal a8–h1 is weak-
ened before Black develops the Bc8 to the b7-square.
The queen on the e7-square is well placed to pressure
the e4-pawn. However, as most of Black’s pieces are on
the queenside, continuing with pawn pushes like f7–f5 is
probably too weakening, as Alekhine demonstrated in his
game against Seitz in 1925.[113] So Black does best to at-
tack with pieces, possibly with the setup b6/Nc5/Bb7/0-
0-0.[114] In that case Tseitlin considers that with a knight
on c5 the move d7–d6 should be avoided if Black has to
respond to the capture Bxc5 by dxc5, because the white
pawns in e4 and f4 would have too much leeway.[115]
After 7.Nd2 Qe7 8.a3 Lalic considers 8...Qxe4 should be
avoided, e.g. the continuation 9.Kf2 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 0-0
11.Nf3 d6 12.Re1 gives White several tempi against the
black queen.[116] After the better 8...Bc5 9.Bxc5 Qxc5
10.Qf3 Lalic recommends 10...a5.[117] The introduction
of the intermediate 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Qe7 does not change
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP
Lalic’s opinion, as after 9.Bg2 Na6 10.a3 Bc5 11.Bxc5
Nxc5 12.b4 Ne6 the bishop was well placed on g2 and
Black experienced difficulties developing the Bc8.[118]
But Lalic does not mention the game Pomar–Heidenfeld
cited by Borik, in which Black played the advance a7–a5
to restrict the white advance b2–b4, and achieved equality
after 9.Bg2 a5 10.Ne2 Na6.[119] Instead, he recommends
7...d6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Bd3 and now the same development
as in Pomar’s game:[120]
9...a5 and 10...Na6 deserves attention,
when White’s movements on the queenside are
more restricted and the black knight will be
able to settle on the c5-square without being
kicked by the thematic b2–b4. It may appear
that we have reached the same position elab-
orated in previous games a tempo down for
Black, since he has committed his bishop to b4
and will later drop back to the c5-square in-
stead of heading there at once. However, the
white knight is less actively placed on d2 and in
fact this fully compensates Black for the slight
loss of time.
Line 5...Ng6
After 5.f4 Ng6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6
The Knight on g6 puts the f4-pawn under pressure, but
may be embarrassed later by the pawn thrust f4–f5. Now
6.a3, an attempt to deny squares from the Bf8 by con-
tinuing with b2–b4 or Bc1–e3, does not achieve its goal
after 6...Bc5! 7.b4?! Bxg1! 8.Rxg1 0-0! 9.Qf3 d6
10.g4 a5 11.b5 Nd7 12.Ra2 Nc5 when Black’s supe-
rior pawn structure and well-positioned Nc5 gives him
the advantage.[121] That leaves White with the choice be-
tween 6.Nf3 and 6.Be3.
The move 6.Nf3 controls the e5-square in order to pre-
pare the push f4–f5. Unlike after 5...Nec6, White does
not have to fear 6...Bc5?!, which encounters difficulties
after 7.f5! Nh4 8.Ng5!, when the black knight is already
in danger of being lost to Qd1–g4 or Qd1–h5.[122] In-
stead Black must react quickly with 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 when
he can adopt a normal setup with d6/0-0/Nc6/b6 or act
boldly with 7...Qf6 threatening both the Nc3 and the f4-
pawn.[123] One point in favour of 7...Qf6 is that after 8.e5
Qb6 the black queen prevents White from castling short
and is well placed if White castles long.[124]
The move 6.Be3 takes the a7–g1 diagonal from Black’s
Bf8 and may in some lines prepare the long castle. Af-
ter the mandatory 6...Bb4+ White can opt for 7.Nd2
to avoid having doubled pawns, but he must be pre-
pared to sacrifice a pawn after 7...Qe7 8.Kf2!? Bxd2
9.Qxd2 Qxe4 10.Bd3 with piece activity for the pawn
deficit,[125] because the normal defence 8.Bd3? runs
201
into 8...Qd6! and both the Bd3 and the f4-pawn are
attacked.[126] White does not need, however, bother too
much about the doubled pawns and after 7.Nc3 Bxc3+
8.bxc3 a peaceful black player might choose the quiet
8...b6!? followed by a normal development with d6/0-
0/Bb7/Nd7/Re8/Nc5.[107] Instead of 8...b6 a more ad-
venturous black player could choose 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 f5!?
as indicated by Borik, Tseitlin and Lalic,[107][127][128] but
in his more recent book Moskalenko thinks “this move
complicates the game too much”.[129] If the black player
is neither peaceful nor aggressive, Lalic proposes an alter-
native with 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Qd2 and only now that
Black has his king safe shall he unleash 10...f5!?, when
“it is not so easy for White to meet [10...f5] as the two
main responses, 11.e5 and 11.exf5, allow Black promis-
ing chances with 11...d6 and 11...Nxf4 respectively”.
8.14.7 Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4
The Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4
The line 3...Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 The Fajarowicz variation is
said to have its origins in the chess circles from Leipzig,
with the first important game being H.Steiner–Fajarowicz
at the 1928 Wiesbaden tournament.[130][131] In this varia-
tion, Black makes no immediate effort to regain the gam-
bit pawn, preferring to concentrate on active piece play
and tactical tricks.[notes 8]
The move 4.a3 allows White to avoid the annoying bishop
check on b4, the also annoying knight jump to b4, and
prepares Qc2 to undermine Black’s knight. Both Lalic
and de Firmian consider it to be White’s best move,[132]
with de Firmian assessing it as leading to a large advan-
tage for White.[133] Lalic considers 4...b6!? to be the best
answer, one point being that Qd1–c2, so effective in most
of the other lines, can be met by Bc8–b7. After 5.Nd2
Bb7 6.Qc2 Lalic gives 6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 a5! when the
black bishops will be excellently placed on the b7- and c5-
squares.[134] Lalic recommends 6.Nf3 instead,[135] while
de Firmian continues by 5.Nf3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.Qc2
with a large advantage for White.[133][136]
The move 4.Nf3 develops a piece and covers the sensi-
tive d2-square. After 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.a3 Black
can easily get confused by the move-order. The natural
6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qc3 transposes
in the same position as after 5.Bd2, but White can also
try 6...Nxd2 7.axb4! Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 Nxe5 9.Rg1 Qe7
10.Ra3! with a strong initiative.[137] White can even re-
tain his bishop with 6...Nxd2 7.Nxd2 and now Borik rec-
ommends 7...Bf8 with difficult play for Black as he is not
certain to gain his pawn back.[138] To avoid these pos-
sibilities Lalic advises the move-order 6...Bxd2+ 7.Bxd2
Nxd2 8.Qxd2 Qe7, but does not mention the possibility
of White answering 6...Bxd2+ with 7.Nxd2. A possible
improvement for Black (after 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2) would be
202
5...d5 with compensation for the pawn in all lines.[139]
The line 4.Qc2 immediately attacks the Ne4, as a retreat
by Black would effectively surrender his temporary lead
in development, which is the compensation for the sacri-
ficed pawn. Black must continue to develop while trying
to keep the Ne4 on its square, but that is by no means
easy. Borik thinks 4.Qc2 is the move “that gives Black
the most problems to solve”,[140] but Lalic does not agree
at all, stating that the reply “4...Bb4+ [....] followed by
d7–d5 ensures Black a rapid development and plenty of
counterplay. It is for this reason that 4.Qc2 is not on the
danger list”.[141] The reply 4...Bb4+ (see diagram at right)
pins the white pieces before deciding what to do with the
Ne4. White cannot reply 5.Bd2 as he would lose the
bishop pair and Black would easily regain the e5-pawn
with Nc6/Qe7/0-0/Re8. After 5.Nd2 this knight would
be misplaced and would block the Bc1, so Black could
open the game with 5...d5 in favourable circumstances.
Best for White is 5.Nc3 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Bd2 Nxd6 8.e4!
Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Bxe4 when Black has regained his pawn but
White has the bishop pair and possibilities of an attack on
the kingside.[142]
8.14.8 Other possibilities
Line 3...Ng4 4.e3
After 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nh3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3
Apart from the main lines 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4, the
only significant other fourth move is 4.e3 to continue by
4...Nxe5 5.Nh3 (or the other move-order 4.Nh3 and 5.e3)
so that the white knight starts the journey Ng1–h3–f4–
d5 reach its ideal d5-square.[143] The idea with 4.e3 and
5.Nh3 was favorite of a leading Soviet coach and writer
Mikhail Shereshevsky, who wrote in his 1994 book The
Soviet Chess Conveyor that the line was first shown to him
by a strong correspondence player Donatas Lapienis.[144]
Black has tried to prevent White’s idea by the suitably
strange-looking move 5...Ng6, taking the f4-square from
the Nh3. Then White can develop along various setups,
the most active being 6.Qh5 with the possibility Nh3–
g5 in store to recycle the knight towards a more central
position.[145] Black can also ignore White’s intentions and
concentrate on his own play by placing the Nb8 on c5,
in order to put pressure on the d3-square. After 5...g6
6.Nf4 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.Nc3 Nbd7 10.Qd2 a5
11.b3 Nc5 the position of Black’s knights is secured and
Black’s position is similar to the Leningrad variation of
the Dutch Defence (once he has played f7–f5).[146] White
has no reason, however, to abandon the a1–h8 diagonal to
Black, and he can try 5...g6 6.Bd2 d6 7.Nf4 Bg7 8.Bc3 0-
0 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.Nd2 b6 and in one game White gained
a minimal edge.[147]
CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE
Other fourth moves after 3...Ng4
After 4.Qd4
A few other lines have been tried, with the outcome
varying from an immediate equality to a clear advantage
for Black. The cooling 4.e6 avoids complications and
heads for an equal endgame with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8,
Black’s loss of the right to castle being of no great im-
portance since queens have been traded. If Black wants
to avoid this early endgame, he can try 4...Bb4+ 5.Nc3
Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe6 and now the exchange of queens
would give a plus to Black, as the white queenside pawns
are isolated and doubled.[148] The greedy 4.f4 is weak be-
cause White neglects his development and weakens the
a7–g1 diagonal.[149][150][151][152] Black can immediately
exploit this with 4...Bc5, which threatens a fork on f2 and
forbids White’s castling; Black may later push d7–d6 to
open the centre, e.g. 5.Nh3 0-0 6.Nc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6
when Black has good squares for its pieces while White’s
castling is delayed.
Another reasonable-looking move is 4.Qd4 as it protects
the e5-pawn and attacks the Ng4. However, “the prob-
lem for White in the Budapest is that natural moves often
lead to disaster”.[153] Best for Black is the gambit 4...d6
5.exd6 Nc6! 6.Qd1 Bxd6, when the natural 7.Nf3?? is
an error because of 7...Nxf2! 8.Kxf2 Bg3+ winning the
queen.[154] White must develop quietly with moves like
Nc3/Nf3/e3/Be2, allowing Black to find active positions
for his pieces with 0-0/Be6/Qe7/Rfd8, and preparing sev-
eral sacrificial ideas on e3 or f2, with excellent attacking
possibilities.[155] Similar to 4.Qd4 is 4.Qd5 when after
4...Nc6 White can seize the last opportunity to return to
calm waters with 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 which will transpose
in the Rubinstein line,[156] or he can try 5.Nf3 d6 6.exd6
Be6 7.d7+ Bxd7 when Black’s lead in development com-
pensates for the pawn.[157]
Declining the gambit
Declining the gambit is almost never seen in master play
because it promises White equality at best. After 3.d5?!
Bc5 White has prematurely blocked the central position,
giving the a7–g1 diagonal to Black for his bishop. In
this variation Black can either play on the queenside with
a plan like b5/Nb6/Bd7, or on the kingside with a plan
like Ne8/g6/Ng7/f5.[158] The shy 3.e3?! exd4 4.exd4
transposes into a line of the Exchange Variation of the
French Defence with 4...d5, but Black can also develop
rapidly with 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 0-0.[159][160]
After 3.e4? Black gains a crushing attack via 3...Nxe4
4.dxe5 Bc5 5.Nh3 d6 6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6 0-0! 8.fxg7 Re8
9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Bxh3 11.gxh3 Qh4+.[161][162] After
3.Bg5?! the game Ladmann–Tartakower (Scarborough
1929) continued with 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Be7 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Qd1 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.a3 d6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Qf6
11.Nbd2 Bf5 when both Tseitlin and Borik assess the
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP
position as favourable for Black.[159][163] After 3.Nf3?!
the game Menchik–Tartakower (Paris 1929)[164] contin-
ued with 3...e4 4.Nfd2 d5 5.cxd5?! Qxd5 6.e3 Bb4 7.Nc3
Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 and White has problems developing his
kingside because of the potential weakness of g2.[163]
8.14.9 Illustrative games
Wu Shaobin–Nadanian, Singapore 2006
The following game was played between the Chinese GM
Wu Shaobin (White) and Armenian IM Ashot Nadanian
(Black) at Singapore 2006.[notes 10]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6
6.Be2 Ncxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.0-0 0-0 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2
a5 Preparing Dolfi Drimer’s rook manoeuvre Ra8–a6–
h6. Nadanian calls the pawn advance a7–a5 “the soul
of the Budapest Gambit”.[165] 11.Nc3 Ra6 12.Ne4 Ba7
13.Ng3 Qh4 14.Nf5 Qg5!? This was a new move,
before 14...Qe4 had been played. 15.Nd4 Rg6 16.g3
d5?! 18...Qh6 was stronger. 17.cxd5? White should
have played 17.Nb5! 17...Bh3! 18.Re1 Ng4 19.Nf3
Qxe3! Karolyi writes, “This shows Kasparov-like aggres-
sion and ingenuity.” 20.Bd4 Qxf2+!! 21.Bxf2 Bxf2+
22.Kh1 Bb6 23.Qb1? White should have defended with
23.Rf1! After 23...Ne3 24.Qd3 Bg2+ 25.Kg1 Bh3 White
can either repeat moves with 26.Kh1, or try 26.Nd4.
23...Nf2+ 24.Kg1 Rf6! Black has time to increase the
pressure. 25.b4! If 25.Qc2?, then 25...Ng4+ 26.Kh1
Bg2+! winning the queen. 25...a4! But not 25...Rxf3?
26.bxa5. 26.Ng5 Black can now force mate in 8 moves.
26...Ng4+! 27.Kh1 Bg2+!! “This is a marvellous move,
and it must have been such a thrill to play it on the board.”
(Karolyi). 28.Kxg2 Rf2+ 29.Kh3 Rxh2+ 30.Kxg4 h5+
31.Kf4 Be3+ 0–1[166]
8.14.10 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
• Indian Defence
8.14.11 Notes
[1] White’s plan involves pawn advances on the queenside,
resulting in the creation of a weak pawn for Black, then
winning this weak pawn. In this process all minor pieces
and queenside pawns are likely to disappear, so that White
ends up in a better ending with four pawns on the kingside
against three for Black, and only major pieces. This type
of ending has drawish tendencies, as Kaposztas demon-
strated in his games against Meleghegyi (Budapest 1981),
Petran (Budapest 1974) or Farago (Budapest 1975), all of
them drawn.
203
[2] Another example is in the game Döry–Tartakower (Vi-
enna 1928), when after the initial opening sequence 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nf3 the answer
5...Bb4+?! is bad because White can play 6.Nbd2 to avoid
the exchange of bishops and gain a tempo later with a2–
a3, with a small plus (see Tseitlin 1992, p.13).
A third example is in the Adler variation after 1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 when Black should not play
4...Bb4+ because White can answer 5.Nbd2! Nc6 6.e3
Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3! Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 and White has
the better prospects. He has the bishop pair and he can
develop his Bc1 on the influential a1–h8 diagonal (see
Tseitlin 1992, p.69).
[3] Borik wrote that “the move 4...g5 creates irreparable
weaknesses in Black’s camp” (see Borik 1986, p.22),
while Tseitlin decided “this extravagant tactical stroke
weakens the kingside and, on general grounds alone, can-
not be good” (see Tseitlin 1992, p.41). Lalic warned that
“Black should be aware of the risks he is taking by playing
such a line” (see Lalic 1998, p.65).
[4] Black threatens both the c4-pawn and the Nf3, and 8.e3?!
Nxf3+ forces either 9.gxf3 with doubled pawns or 9.Qxf3
Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2, when White cannot castle any more.
White does not want to play 8.Bxe5?! either because it
would cede the bishop pair, which is the main source of
White’s hopes for an advantage in this line.
[5] Note that for Black, the sequence 7...Ngxe5 8...Nxe5
9...Bxd2+ is not only cunning, but also the best move-
order as another sequence would give White an early op-
portunity to realise the advantageous c4–c5 push (whose
advantages are explained in the section "Breakthrough
with the c4–c5 push"). For example after 7...Bxd2+?!
8.Qxd2 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 White should not play the
usual 10.e3?! but should strive for more with the imme-
diate 10.c5! as Black cannot take in c5 without losing the
c7-pawn because of the possibilities Ra1–c1 and Qd2–c3
(see Lalic 1998, p.33).
[6] As cited by Tseitlin (p.21), Alekhine himself stated:
This is considered with good reason to
be White’s best system against the Budapest
Gambit. White hands the pawn back, but in
return gains control of d5. Over the next few
moves, however, he has to play with extreme
precision, since otherwise his central pawn
position may become the object of a success-
ful attack by Black.
[7] While Borik does not express a preference, Alekhine con-
siders 7.Nc3! is “much stronger than 7.Nd2, for with the
knight threatening to jump to d5, Black will sooner or later
be forced to exchange his important dark-squared bishop
for it. The doubling of the c-pawns in these circumstances
is not something White should fear.” Tseitlin agrees, stat-
ing that “after 7.Nd2 Black has no difficulty at all” (see
Tseitlin 1992, pp.31 & 119). On the other hand, Lalic
thinks 7.Nd2! is more accurate as “White avoids the dou-
bled c-pawns that are likely to occur after 7.Nc3, and this
knight can later be deployed via the b3-square” (see Lalic
1998, p.111).
204 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

[8] These tactical pitfalls include notably a Bb4+ at an annoy-
ing moment, a Qf6 with a double attack on b2 and f2,
(after 1...d6 2.exd6 Bxd6) the pseudo-sacrifice 3...Nxf2
4.Kxf2 Bg3+ and 5...Qxd1 winning White’s queen for two
minor pieces, and a concerted attack on the d3 square with
the setup Nc5/Bf5/Nb4 (once White has played e3).
[9] Black mates with either 31.Kf5 g6+ 32.Kf6 Bd4 mate, or
31. Kf3 Rf2 mate.
[10] An interactive move list and diagram for the game is at
A Budapest Gambit Assault. (Scroll down after reaching
that webpage. Also note the error there at move 31, since
the actual game ended 31.Kf4 Be3+.)
8.14.12 Footnotes
[1] Edward Winter,The Budapest Defence, Chess Notes
[23] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Efim Bogoljubow”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[24] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: José Capablanca”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[25] “Player profile: Savielly Tartakower; Opening: Budapest
Gambit (A52)". ChessGames.com.
[26] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Rudolf Spielmann”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[27] “Player profile: Rudolf Spielmann; Opening: Budapest
Gambit (A52)". ChessGames.com.
[28] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Nigel Short”. ChessMet-
rics.com.
[29] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Anatoly Karpov”. Chess-
Metrics.com.

[2] Tseitlin 1992, p.8 [30] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Vassily Ivanchuk”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[3] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 3
[31] “Player profile: Nigel Short; Opening: Budapest Gambit
[4] Schlechter, Carl (1917). “Budapester Gambit”. Deutsche (A52)". ChessGames.com.
Schachzeitung. 72: 242.
[32] “Top 100 Players July 2008”. FIDE.
[5] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Akiba Rubinstein”. Chess-
Metrics.com. [33] “Player profile: Shakhriyar Mamedyarov; Opening: Bu-
dapest Gambit (A52)". ChessGames.com.
[6] Tseitlin 1992, p.7
[34] Giffard, Nicolas (1993). Le guide des échecs (in French).
[7] Moskalenko 2007, p.9 Robert Laffont. p. 307. ISBN 2-221-05913-1.

[8] Goldman, Warren (1994). Carl Schlechter ! Life and times [35] Avrukh, Boris (2010). 1.d4 Volume Two. Quality Chess.
of the Austrian chess wizard. Caïssa Editions. p. 532. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-906552-33-6.
ISBN 0-939433-18-4.
[36] Lalic 1998, p.9
[9] “Chess openings: Budapest Gambit (A52)". Chess-
[37] Moskalenko 2008, p.159
Games.com.
[38] Lalic 1998, p.12
[10] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 4
[39] Lalic 1998, p.13
[11] Moskalenko 2007, p.28
[40] Moskalenko 2008, p.162
[12] Tseitlin 1992, p.9
[41] Lalic 1998, p.76
[13] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 6
[42] Lalic 1998, p.10
[14] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 7
[43] Moskalenko 2008, p.51–52
[15] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 8
[44] Tseitlin 1992, p.37
[16] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 12
[45] Lalic 1998, p.81
[17] Moskalenko 2007, p.10
[46] Moskalenko 2008, p.54
[18] For the game score, see this link.
[47] Lalic 1998, p.32
[19] “Chess Opening Explorer”. ChessGames.com. “Gurevich–Miezis, Bad Godesburg 1996”. Chess-
Games.com.
[20] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Richard Réti”. ChessMet-
rics.com. [48] Lalic 1998, p.10
“Gligorić–Westerinen, Venice 1971”. ChessGames.com.
[21] “Player profile: Richard Reti; Opening: Budapest Gambit
(A52)". [49] Borik 1986, p.17
Akesson–Tagnon, Berlin open 1984
[22] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Saviely Tartakower”.
ChessMetrics.com. [50] Borik 1986, p.24
8.14. KIENINGER TRAP 205

[51] Borik 1986, p.82 [80] Tseitlin 1992, p.7

Lhaghkva–Contendini, Leipzig Olympiad, 1960 “Rubinstein–Vidmar, Berlin 1918”. ChessGames.com.

[52] Oleinikov chapter 5 [81] Tseitlin 1992, p.55

[53] “ECO classification of WCCF”. Retrieved 2008-05-25. [82] Lalic 1998, p.55
“van Wely–Sorin, Buenos Aires 1995”. Chess-
[54] Tseitlin 1992, p.70
Games.com.
[55] Tseitlin 1992, p.83 Yakovich–Coret, Seville 1992

[56] Tseitlin 1992, p.87 [83] Tseitlin 1992, p.63

[57] Silman 2002 [84] Taylor 2009, p.161.

[58] Tseitlin 1992, p.87 [85] Taylor 2009,pp.164–67

“Arencibia–Motwani, Dubai Olympiad 1986”. Chess-
Games.com. [86] Lalic 1998, p.36

[59] Tseitlin 1992, p.88 [87] Tseitlin 1992, p.64

[60] Lalic 1998, p.79 [88] Lalic 1998, p.37

[61] Borik 1986, p.19 [89] Lalic 1998, p.38
“Osnos–Yermolinsky, Leningrad 1977”. Chess- “Lesiège–Svidler, Oakham 1992”. ChessGames.com.
Games.com.
[90] Lalic 1998, p.38
[62] Tseitlin 1992, p.78
[91] Lalic 1998, p.30
[63] Borik 1986, p.17
[92] Borik 1986, p.24
[64] Tseitlin 1992, p.80
“Garcia Palermo–Rogers, Reggio Emilia 1984–85”.
[65] Tseitlin 1992, p.132 ChessGames.com.
“Spassky–Illescas, Linares 1990”. ChessGames.com.
[93] Lalic 1998, p.17
[66] Lalic 1998, p.81
Alekseev–Bliumberg, Minsk 1993 [94] Moskalenko 2007, p.69

[67] Silman 2002 [95] Lalic 1998, p.18

“Beliavsky–Mohr, Portoroz 1997”. ChessGames.com.
[96] Taylor 2009, p.154
[68] Moskalenko 2007, p.15
[97] “Mikhalevski–Chabanon (Bad Endbach 1995)".
[69] Tseitlin 1992, p.126
“Rubinstein–Tartakower, Bad Kissingen 1928”. Chess- [98] Lalic 1998, p.27
Games.com.
[99] Lalic 1998, p.61
[70] “Van Wely–Mamedyarov (Ciudad Real 2004)". Gleizerov–Ritova, Berlin 1996

[71] “Graf–Asik (Kavala 2007)". [100] Lalic 1998, p.61

Sher–Mohr, Ljubljana 1995
[72] Tseitlin 1992, p.41
Dumitrache–Biti, Zagreb 1997
[73] Lalic 1998, p.65
[101] Lalic 1998, p.47
[74] Lalic 1998, p.67 Gleizerov–Bosch, Cappelle La Grande open 1996
Amura - Paglilla, Buenos Aires open 1995
[102] Lalic 1998, p.49
[75] Lalic 1998, p.66
Kuraszkiewicz–Bartsch, Germany 1996 [103] Oleinikov chapter 4

[76] Lalic 1998, p.66 [104] Lalic 1998, p.105

Elbilia–Bartsch, Cannes open 1995
[105] Lalic 1998, p.111
[77] Tseitlin 1992, p.47
[106] Borik 1986, p.47, citing the IMs Harry Schlüsser and Tom
[78] Lalic 1998, p.51 Wedberg
“Korchnoi–Gomez Esteban, Pamplona 1990–91”. Chess-
Games.com. [107] Borik 1986, p.46

[79] Tseitlin 1992, p.49 [108] Taylor 2009, p.?

 206 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

[109] Borik 1986, p.47 [133] De Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
“Vaganian–Wedberg, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978”. 15. Random House Puzzles & Games. p. 504. ISBN
ChessGames.com. 978-0-8129-3682-7.

[110] Lalic 1998, p.104 [134] Lalic 1998, p.139

“Timoschenko–Welling, Ostend 1991”. Chess-
[111] Lalic 1998, p.110 Games.com.
[112] Tseitlin 1992, p.118 [135] Lalic 1998, p.139
“Rudakovsky–Ratner, Moscow 1945”. Chess- Ricardi–Perez, Olivos 1993
Games.com.
[136] “Hillarp Persson–Romero Holmes, Hotel Bali Stars
[113] Borik 1986, p.51; Tseitlin 1992, p.119 2003”. ChessGames.com.
“Alekhine–Seitz, Hastings 1925–26”. ChessGames.com.
[137] Lalic 1998, p.143
[114] Borik 1986, p.53 Kullamaa–Starke, Correspondence 1991
“Keres–Gilg, Prague 1937”. ChessGames.com.
[138] Borik 1986, p.91
[115] Tseitlin 1992, p.33
[139] Tseitlin 1992, p.96
[116] Lalic 1998, p.112
Potocnik–G.Hofmann, Bled 1996 [140] Borik 1986, p.68

[117] Lalic 1998, p.112 [141] Lalic 1998, p.152

“Dautov–Blatny, Bad Worishofen 1991”. Chess-
[142] Borik 1986, p.84
Games.com.
[143] According to Tseitlin, this idea first occurred in the game
[118] Lalic 1998, p.111
Baginskaite–Stroe, Vilnius 1986
Dautov - Haas, Buehl 1992
[144] Shereshevsky 1994, p. 21.
[119] Borik 1986, p.50
Moskalenko 2008, p.136 [145] Lalic 1998, p.101
Pomar–Heidenfeld, Enschede 1963 Marin–de la Villa, Szirak interzonal 1987
[120] Lalic 1998, p.113 [146] Lalic 1998, p.98–99
Zwikowski–Gurieli, Genting Highlands 1990
[121] Lalic 1998, p.123
“Gurevich–Tisdall, Akureyri 1988”. ChessGames.com.
Mechkarov–Atanasov, correspondence 1955
Zayats - Malaniuk, Minsk 1988
[122] Borik 1986, p.43; Tseitlin 1992, p.120
[147] Lalic 1998, p.98
“Alekhine–Rabinovich, Baden-Baden 1925”. Chess-
Aleksandrov–Pavlenko, Ashkhabad 1990
Games.com.
Borik wrongly attributes the black pieces to Seitz in his [148] Lalic 1998, p.127
book, while Tseitlin and Lalic rightly note the Black player Henriksson–Wiander, Helsingborg 1991
was actually Rabinovich.
[149] Pachman, Ludek (1983). Opening game in chess. Rout-
[123] Borik 1986, p.45 ledge. ISBN 978-0-7100-9222-9.
Chebotayev–Isayev, USSR 1948
[150] Lalic 1998, p.129
[124] Tseitlin 1992, p.39 Akhundov–Simonenko, Ashkhabad 1990
[125] Lalic 1998, p.120 [151] Borik 1986, p.55
[126] Lalic 1998, p.120 [152] Tseitlin 1992, p.111
Lorscheid–Dunnington “Helmar–Krejcik, Vienna 1917”. ChessGames.com.

[127] Tseitlin 1992, p.36 [153] Lalic 1998, p.129

“Beliavsky–Epishin, Reggio Emilia 1991”. Chess-
[128] Lalic 1998, p.122 Games.com.
[129] Moskalenko 2008, p.126 [154] Tseitlin 1992, p.18
Golichenko–Malienko, Kiev 2007
[155] Tseitlin 1992, p.20
[130] Borik 1986, p.60
[156] Tseitlin 1992, p.15
[131] Tseitlin 1992, p.89
[157] Borik 1986, p.57
[132] Lalic calls it “undoubtedly the most critical line”. Lalic
1998, p.132 [158] Tseitlin 1992, p.12, citing Kwiatkowski
 8.15. BLACK KNIGHTS’ TANGO
[159] Borik 1986, p.93
[160] Tseitlin 1992, p.12
[161] Tseitlin 1992, p.11, citing Schlechter
[162] Borik 1986, p.94, citing Schlechter
[163] Tseitlin 1992, p.11
[164] “Menchik–Tartakower (Paris 1929)".
[165] Nadanian, Ashot. “The Soul of the Budapest Gambit”.
Chessville. Retrieved 31 December 2011.
[166] Karolyi, Tibor; Aplin, Nick (2009). “6”. Genius in the
Background. Quality Chess. pp. 198–203. ISBN 978-1-
906552-37-4.
8.14.13 References
• Borik, Otto (1986). Budapest Gambit. The Macmil-
lan Chess Library. ISBN 978-0-02-017500-1.
• Shereshevsky, Mikhail (1994). The Soviet Chess
Conveyor. Semko (Sofia). ISBN 954-8782-01-4.
• Lalić, Bogdan (1998). The Budapest Gambit. Bats-
ford. ISBN 978-0-7134-8456-4.
• Review by: Glenn Flear & Jon Tisdall. “The
Budapest”. ChessPublishing.com. Retrieved
2009-03-12.
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2007). The Fabulous Budapest
Gambit. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-224-6.
• Review by: John Donaldson. “Fabulous Bu-
dapest gambit”. JeremySilman.com. Re-
trieved 2009-03-12.
• Review by: Carsten Hansen. “1.d4 fireworks”
(PDF). ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 2009-03-
12.
• Review by: Bill McGeary. “The Fabulous Bu-
dapest Gambit by GM Victor Moskalenko”.
ChessVille.com. Retrieved 2009-09-14.
• Oleinikov, Dmitrij (2005). Budapest Gambit (2nd ed.).
Chessbase (on CD).
• Silman, Jeremy (2002). “Budapest Gambit”. JeremySil- The Black Knights’ Tango (also known as the Mexican
man.com. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
• Taylor, Timothy (2009). The Budapest Gambit. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-592-3.
• Review by: Donaldson, John. “The Bu-
dapest Gambit”. JeremySilman.com. Re-
trieved 2009-09-23.
207
• Review by: Bill McGeary. “The Budapest
Gambit”. ChessVille.com. Retrieved 2012-
05-27.
• Tseitlin, Mikhail; Glaskov, Igor (1992). The Budapest
for the Tournament Player. Batsford. ISBN 978-0-8050-
2431-9.
8.14.14 Further reading
• Martin, Andrew (2009). The Budapest Gambit. Chess-
Base (on DVD).
• Gutman, Lev (2004). Budapest Fajarowicz: The
Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit in Action. Batsford. ISBN 0-
7134-8708-9.
• Review by: Matthew Sadler. “Sadler on
books” (PDF). NewInChess.com. Retrieved
2009-03-10.
• Review by: Carsten Hansen. “Budapest
Fajarowicz by Lev Gutman” (PDF). Chess-
Cafe.com. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
• Review by: Erik Sobjerg. “Budapest Fa-
jarowicz”. SeaGaard.dk. Retrieved 2009-03-
10.
• Harding, Tim (1996). The fighting Fajarowicz. Chess Di-
gest. ISBN 978-0-87568-281-5.
8.14.15 External links
• Gary Lane (February 2002). “A Christmas gift” (PDF).
ChessCafe.
• Tim Harding (November 2000). “The Kibitzer: Playing
the Budapest in Budapest” (PDF). ChessCafe.
• Tim Harding (December 1997). “The Kibitzer: How
Stands the Faj?". ChessCafe.
• Tim Wee. “A Budapest Gambit Assault”. Chess.com.
• Marco Saba. “Opening Report: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 (14376
games)". Centro Studi Monetari.
8.15 Black Knights’ Tango
Defense or Kevitz–Trajkovic Defense) is a chess open-
ing beginning with the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 Nc6
This position can also be reached by transposition, for ex-
ample 1.c4 Nf6, 1.d4 Nc6, or 1.c4 Nc6.
208 CHAPTER 8. D4 OPENINGS – INDIAN DEFENCE

8.15.1 History 3.Nc3

The opening originated in the 1920s, when it was played This is White’s second most popular move.[22] After the
by both the Mexican grandmaster Carlos Torre (hence the thematic 3...e5, one possibility for White is 4.Nf3, trans-
name “Mexican Defense”)[1] and the American master posing to an English Opening.[23] Palliser recommends
Alexander Kevitz (the “Kevitz” in “Kevitz–Trajkovic 4...e4!? in response, while Orlov prefers 4...exd4 5.Nxd4
Defense”). Torre used it to defeat then-U.S. Chess Bb4.[23][24] Instead, the main line is 4.d5 Ne7.[25] Now the
Champion Frank James Marshall in only seven moves.[2] game may continue in “Tango” fashion, for example with
It was later played by the Yugoslav master Mihailo 5.Nf3 Ng6, or transpose to the King’s Indian Defense
Trajkovic[3][4] and the Soviet grandmaster Anatoly Lu- with, for example, 5.Nf3 d6 6.e4 (6.Bg5!?) g6 7.Be2 Bg7
tikov.[5][6][7][8] 8.O-O O-O, reaching the main line of the King’s Indian
by transposition.[26]
After decades of obscurity, the opening was revitalized
by International Master Georgi Orlov, who published Another interesting but relatively unexplored idea is
a booklet and a book about it in 1992 and 1998, re- 3...e6, allowing White to play 4.e4 (other moves such
spectively. Orlov rechristened the opening the “Black as 4.d5, 4.Bg5, 4.a3, 4.f3, and 4.Nf3 are also possible),
Knights’ Tango”.[9] whereupon Black follows up with 4...d5. From that po-
sition, the main possibilities are 5.e5 (the main line),
Since 1992, the opening has been employed by a num- 5.exd5, 5.cxd5, and 5.Bg5. These possibilities can also be
ber of strong grandmasters, including Victor Bologan, reached via transposition from the Flohr–Mikenas Varia-
Joel Benjamin, Larry Christiansen, and Alex Yermolin- tion of the English Opening (1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4), al-
sky.[10] Yermolinsky has even ventured it against Garry though if Black wishes to play this way, the optimal move
Kasparov.[11] order is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6.

8.15.2 Basic ideas
Although fairly uncommon, the “Tango” has a sounder
positional basis than most other offbeat openings: Black
develops quickly, has a flexible pawn structure, and is pre-
pared to strike back in the center with 3...e5, or with
...e6 and ...d5. The opening has some distinct varia-
tions but it is highly transpositional, and may transpose
to the King’s Indian Defense, Nimzo–Indian Defense,
Bogo–Indian Defense, Chigorin Defense, Ragozin Sys-
tem, Catalan Opening, and English Opening.
8.15.3 Possible continuations
3.Nf3
The most common move, preventing 3...e5.[12] Black usu-
ally responds with 3...e6, although 3...d6, intending a
kind of Old Indian Defense, is also possible.[12][13] Af-
ter 3...e6, White can play 4.Nc3 Bb4 (transposing to the
Nimzo–Indian Defense);[14][15] 4.a3, when Black can ei- 8.15.4 References
ther play 4...d5 (reaching a kind of Queen’s Gambit De-
clined or Ragozin System),[16] or 4...d6 preparing 5...e5 Notes
or even 5...g6 (“championed by Bologan”, according to
Palliser), reaching a sort of King’s Indian Defense;[17][18] [1] ,“Fridrich Sämisch vs Carlos Torre-Repeto, Baden-Baden
or 4.g3, when Black can transpose to the Catalan Opening
with 4...d5, recommended by Palliser[19][20] or 4...Bb4+,
preferred by Orlov, which transposes to a Nimzo–Indian
after 5.Nc3, or to a Bogo–Indian Defense after 5.Bd2 or
5.Nbd2.[19][21]
3.d5
This ambitious move is playable but rarely seen.[27] Black
normally responds with 3...Ne5. Then after 4.e4 (invit-
ing 4...Nxe4?? 5.Qd4 winning a knight), Black struck
back in the center with 4...Ng6 5.f4 e5 in the seminal
game Sämisch–Torre, Moscow 1925.[1] However, Orlov
considers both Torre’s fourth and fifth moves inferior.[28]
He and Palliser both recommend instead 4...e6,[28][29]
after which play can become extremely sharp. For ex-
ample, Elburg–Simmelink, correspondence 1999 contin-
ued 5.f4 Ng6 6.Bd3 exd5 7.e5?! Ne4 8.cxd5 Qh4+
9.g3 Bb4+! 10.Bd2? (Better is 10.Nc3! Nxc3!
11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Qe7 14.Nf3 d6
15.Bb5+! Kf8 16.Qc3 with some practical chances for
the sacrificed pawn).[30] Nxg3 11.Nf3 (see diagram at
left) Nxf4! 12.Bf1! (12.Nxh4?? Nxd3#!; 12.Bxb4?
Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Qxb4+ is hopeless for White.[31] Bxd2+
13.Nbxd2 (see diagram at right; 13.Qxd2? Nxf1+
14.Nxh4 Nxd2 is winning for Black.) Qh3! 14.Rg1
(White cannot take either of Black’s two hanging pieces:
14.Bxh3 Nd3#; 14.hxg3 Qxg3#. Nor is 14.Ng5 Qg2! any
better.) Nxf1 left Black with two extra pawns.[32]
1925”. Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2009-03-06.
[2] Frank James Marshall vs Carlos Torre-Repetto, Baden-
Baden, 1925
[3] Palliser, p. 10.
8.15. BLACK KNIGHTS’ TANGO 209

[4] Walter Korn, Modern Chess Openings (9th ed. 1957), Pit-
man, p. 234 (citing a 1952 game by Trajkovic).
[5] Walter Korn, Modern Chess Openings (12th ed. 1982),
David McKay, p. 310. ISBN 0-679-13500-6.
[6] Czerniak–Lutikov, IBM B 1968. Chessgames.com. Re-
trieved on 2009-03-06.
[7] Trapl–Lutikov, Warsaw Armies Championship 1969.
Chessgames.com. Retrieved on 2009-03-06.
• Georgi Orlov, Black Knights’ Tango, International
Chess Enterprises, 1992. ISBN 1-879479-03-6.
• Georgi Orlov, The Black Knights’ Tango: Outwit
Your Opponents from Move 2!, Batsford, 1998.
ISBN 0-7134-8349-0.
• Richard Palliser, Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4,
Everyman Chess, 2005. ISBN 1-85744-388-8.

[8] Uhlmann–Lutikov, Sarajevo 1969. Chessgames.com. 8.15.5 External links

Retrieved on 2009-03-06.
• Betwixt the Tango and the Budapest (arguing that
[9] He explained, “this no-name opening has languished,
3. Nf3 does not prevent 3 ..e5)
rarely getting even an honorable mention. I hope to change
that by first highlighting the defense with a catchy name.
Thus The Black Knights Tango!" Orlov 1992, p. 2. His
1998 book added the apostrophe after “Knights”.

[10] Palliser, pp. 7, 10.

[11] “Garry Kasparov vs Alex Yermolinsky, Yerevan

Olympiad 1996”. Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2009-03-
06.

[12] Palliser, p. 82.

[13] Orlov 1998, pp. 53–54.

[14] Palliser, p. 92.

[15] Orlov 1998, p. 80.

[16] Orlov 1998, p. 118.

[17] Palliser, p. 176.

[18] Orlov 1998, pp. 115–18.

[19] Palliser, p. 159.

[20] Orlov 1998, pp. 59–60.

[21] Orlov 1998, pp. 60–61, 80.

[22] Orlov 1998, p. 26.

[23] Palliser, p. 76.

[24] Orlov 1998, p. 27.

[25] Orlov 1998, p. 28.

[26] Orlov 1998, pp. 34–35.

[27] Palliser, p. 55.

[28] Orlov 1998, p. 8.

[29] Palliser, p. 66.

[30] Palliser, p. 69.

[31] Orlov 1998, p. 11.

[32] Palliser, p. 70.

Bibliography
Chapter 9

d4 Openings – Other variations

9.1 Catalan Opening Chess Championship 2006. The Catalan was also played
four times by Viswanathan Anand in the World Chess
The Catalan is a chess opening where White adopts a Championship 2010; in both instances the opponent was
combination of the Queen’s Gambit and Réti Opening: Veselin Topalov, and in each instance White scored two
White plays d4 and c4 and fianchettoes the white bishop more points than Black.
on g2. A common opening sequence is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6
3.g3, although the opening can arise from a large number
9.1.2 Open Catalan, Classical Line
of move orders (see transposition). ECO codes E01–E09
are for lines with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2, and
Open Catalan, Classical line
others are part of E00.
Black has two main approaches to choose between: in the
The Open Catalan, Classical line begins 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4
Open Catalan he plays ...dxc4 and can either try to hold
e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 Be7. White trades the pawn
on to the pawn with ...b5 or give it back for extra time
for a lead in development. Without the d5 pawn, White’s
to free his game. In the Closed Catalan, Black does not
kingside bishop hinders Black’s queenside development.
capture on c4; his game can be somewhat cramped for a
The Open Catalan line here has been a favorite of Anatoly
while, but is quite solid.
Karpov and Efim Geller as Black and Oleg Romanishin
The Catalan is generally seen as a safe way for White to with the white pieces. Usually, white will recover the
get a small advantage. pawn with Qc2 and a4, Ne5, or Qa4. In order to hold
the pawn, Black will have to seriously weaken the queen-
side with ...a6 and ...b5. The ECO code is E05.
9.1.1 History
The Catalan derives its name from Catalonia, after tour- 9.1.3 Illustrative games
nament organisers at the 1929 Barcelona tournament
asked Savielly Tartakower to create a new variation in Kramnik–Anand, Wijk aan Zee chess tournament, 2007
homage to the area’s chess history. It had been played
a few times before Tartakower’s usage in the tourna- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3
ment, however: Réti–Leonhardt, Berlin 1928, for in- 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2
stance, transposed into an Open Catalan. Bb7 10.Bd2 Ra7 11.Rc1 Be4 12.Qb3 Nc6
The Catalan came to prominence at the top level when 13.e3 Qa8 14.Qd1 Nb8 15.Ba5 Rc8 16.a3
both Garry Kasparov and Viktor Korchnoi played it in Bd6 17.Nbd2 Bd5 18.Qf1 Nbd7 19.b4 e5
their Candidates Semifinal match in London in 1983: five 20.dxe5 Bxe5 21.Nxe5 Nxe5 22.f3 Nc4
games of the eleven-game match were Catalans. 23.Nxc4 Bxc4 24.Qf2 Re8 25.e4 c6 26.Rd1
Rd7 27.Rxd7 Nxd7 28.Rd1 Qb7 29.Rd6 f6
In 2004, Ruben Felgaer won a tournament celebrating the 30.f4 Re6 31.Rd2 Re7 32.Qd4 Nf8 33.Qd8
75th anniversary of Barcelona 1929 and the birth of the Rd7 34.Rxd7 Qxd7 35.Qxd7 Nxd7 36.e5
Catalan Opening, ahead of Grandmasters Viktor Korch- fxe5 37.Bxc6 Nf6 38.Bb7 exf4 39.gxf4 Nd5
noi, Mihail Marin, Lluis Comas and Viktor Moskalenko 40.Kf2 Nxf4 41.Ke3 g5 42.Bxa6 Kf7 43.a4
and International Master Manel Granados. Each game in Ke7 44.Bxb5 Bxb5 45.axb5 Kd7 46.Ke4 Ne2
the tournament, which was also held in Barcelona, began 47.Bb6 g4 48.Bf2 Nc3 49.Kf5 Nxb5 50.Kxg4
with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6. Ke6 51.Kg5 Kf7 52.Kf5 Ke7 53.Bc5 1–0[1]
With its use by Vladimir Kramnik, the Catalan has re-
cently gained a good deal of attention by high-level GMs. Kramnik–Carlsen, Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meet-
Kramnik played the opening three times in the World ing, 2007

210
9.2. HALOSAR TRAP 211

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Be7 5.Bg2 9.2.1 History

0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2
Bb7 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.e3 Nb4 12.Bxb4 Bxb4
13.a3 Be7 14.Nbd2 Rc8 15.b4 a5 16.Ne5 The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit arose as a development
Nd5 17.Nb3 axb4 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Nac6 of the earlier Blackmar Gambit, named after Armand
Bxc6 20.Nxc6 Qd7 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.axb4 Blackmar, a relatively little-known New Orleans player
Rfe8 23.Ra5 Bf8 24.Ne5 Qe6 25.Rxb5 Rb8 of the late 19th century who popularized its characteristic
26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Qxc7 Bd6 28.Qa5 Bxb4 moves (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3) and was the first player to
29.Rb1 Qd6 30.Qa4 1–0[2] publish analysis on the opening in the chess literature.[2]
The popularity of the original Blackmar Gambit, how-
ever, was short-lived, as it was basically unsound, allow-
9.1.4 See also ing Black to secure a superior position after White’s im-
mediate 3.f3 with 3...e5!. In 1889, Ignatz von Popiel
• List of chess openings came up with the idea of 3.Nc3, though his main idea was
• List of chess openings named after places to meet 3...Nf6 with 4.Bg5 (rather than the more usual
4.f3) and provided analysis of the Lemberger Counter-
Gambit (3.Nc3 e5).
9.1.5 References The evolved, modern form of this gambit owes much to
the German master Emil Josef Diemer (1908–90), who
[1] “Vladimir Kramnik vs Viswanathan Anand (2007)".
Chessgames.com. 2007-01-19. Retrieved 2014-01-25.
popularized the continuation 3.Nc3 Nf6 and then 4.f3
(when 4...e5? is ineffective as 5.dxe5 hits Black’s knight,
[2] “Vladimir Kramnik vs Magnus Carlsen (2007)". Chess- and after 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 the knight has to retreat to
games.com. Retrieved 2014-01-25. d7 or g8). The position resulting after 3... Nf6 4.f3 re-
flects the main line of the gambit accepted, although other
Black responses on move three are possible. After many
9.1.6 Further reading years of analysis, Diemer wrote a book on the opening
• Neishtadt, Yakov (1987). Play the Catalan: Open in the late 1950s, titled Vom Ersten Zug An Auf Matt!
Variation. Pergamon. ISBN 0-08-029741-2. (Toward Mate From The First Move!), with most of the
published analysis devoted to the Ryder Gambit (and
• Avrukh, Boris (2009). Grandmaster Repertoire 1: associated Halosar Trap), a double-pawn sacrifice char-
1.d4 VOL. 1. Quality Chess UK LLP. ISBN 978-1- acterized by the moves 4...exf3 5.Qxf3.
90655-205-3.
This gambit is considered an aggressive opening, but its
• Dunnington, Angus (1998). Winning With the Cata- soundness continues to be the subject of much debate
lan. International Chess Enterprises. ISBN 978-1- both on and off the chessboard. The ChessOK Opening
879479-69-2. Tree Mode lists the Blackmar–Diemer as scoring 49%
wins for White, 34% wins for Black, and 17% draws.[3]
• Davies, Nigel (2009). Play the Catalan. Everyman
Dismissed by many masters on the one hand, and em-
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-591-6.
braced enthusiastically by many amateurs on the other,
• Ideas for Black against the Catalan: 4...Bb4+ many consider that Black has good chances of defend-
ing successfully and converting the extra pawn in the
endgame, while theory suggests that Black has many ways
9.2 Halosar Trap to equalize. As a result, this opening is rarely seen in
top-level play, but enjoys a certain popularity among club
players. Some titled players, including International Mas-
The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit (or BDG) is a chess
ter Gary Lane, consider the opening to be suitable at the
opening characterized by the moves:
club level and for young and improving players. In one of
his Keybooks, the Rev Tim Sawyer said, “Stop playing for
1. d4 d5
the endgame, play to end the game! Be a winner. Play the
2. e4 dxe4 Blackmar–Diemer Gambit!"[4] On the other hand, Sam
3. Nc3 Collins (in his book Understanding the Chess Openings)
noted the tendency for some Blackmar–Diemer fanat-
where White intends to follow up with f2–f3, usually on ics to try to get the opening in every game, thus limit-
the fourth move. White obtains a move and a half-open f- ing their chess experience, and concluded, “Nobody who
file in return for a pawn, and as with most gambits, White plays good chess plays this line, and nobody who plays
aims to achieve rapid development and active posting of good chess ever will.”[5] Other dismissive quotes include
his pieces in order to rapidly build up an attack at the cost “playing the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is like shopping
of the gambit pawn. It is one of the very few gambits for a tombstone” (Andrew Martin)[6] and “To convince
available to White after 1.d4.[1] an adherent of the BDG that it is unsound, is like try-
212
ing to convince a child that there is no Santa Claus.”
(Kevin Denny).[7] As a result of the intense controversy
surrounding the opening, much of the literature on the
opening is lacking in objectivity.[8]
9.2.2 Main variations
It is easy for Black to decline the gambit on the sec-
ond move with 2...e6 (leading to a French Defence) or
2...c6 (leading to a Caro-Kann Defence), although doing
so does not eliminate White’s ability to offer alternative
gambits such as the Diemer-Duhm Gambit (2...e6 3.c4)
or the Alapin-Diemer Gambit (2...e6 3.Be3), or for in-
stance 2...c6 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 or 4.Bc4 intending 5.f3. Euwe Defence: 5...e6
9.2.3 Main line
After 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3,
Black has five main options:
Gunderam Defence: 5...Bf5
The line 5...Bf5 (along with most of the ...c6/...Bf5 de-
fences for Black in general) was extensively analysed
by Gerhart Gunderam, who published his analysis in a
book Blackmar–Diemer Gambit in 1984.[9] The main
response for White is 6.Ne5, intending to attack the
black bishop with an advance of the kingside pawns and,
if appropriate, weaken Black’s kingside pawn structure
with Ne5xBg6. Black can respond with 6...e6, when
after 7.g4, 7...Be4 leads to tremendous complications,
e.g. after 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4 10.Qxf7+ Kd8
11.Qf4.[10] More common is 7...Bg6, which leads to qui-
eter play, when White’s best response is probably 8.Bg2
c6 9.h4, with a sustained kingside initiative in return for
the pawn.[11] However, Black also has the option 6...c6
intending 7.g4 Be6, when White has to play accurately to
prove enough compensation for the pawn after 8.g5 Nd5
or 8.Bc4 Nd5 9.Qe2 Nd7.[12] White has an alternative
in 6.Bd3, directly challenging the bishop, but Christoph
Scheerer doubts that White gets enough compensation af-
ter 6...Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 intending ...e6, ...Nbd7, ...Be7
and ...0-0 with a solid position.[13]
Teichmann Defence: 5...Bg4
The move 5...Bg4 pins the knight on f3, often with the
intention of swapping it off and undermining White’s
central control.[14] White’s best response is to attack the
bishop immediately with 6.h3, when play often contin-
ues 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 (but not 7...Nc6, when 8.Bb5 is
good for White). In this position, White can defend the
attacked d-pawn with 8.Qf2 (the Ciesielski Variation),
but this allows Black an easy game by preparing ...e7–
e5, e.g. after 8...Nbd7 9.Bd3 e5.[15] Alternatively, 8.Be3
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
is the Classical Variation, where White aims for a slow
buildup to a kingside offensive. White’s other main alter-
native is 8.g4!?, the Seidel–Hall Attack, where White is
happy to sacrifice the d-pawn in order to gain an increased
initiative on the kingside, e.g. after 8...Qxd4 9.Be3 Qe5
10.0-0-0 e6 11.g5. Black can decline the pawn, e.g. af-
ter 8...e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3, leading to sharp play.[16] Al-
ternatively, after 6.h3, Black can retreat the bishop with
6...Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5, a line which often transposes to
the Gunderam Defence line 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6
after a subsequent h3–h4, as White’s extra tempo with
h3 is not particularly useful.[17]
The 5...e6 line, analysed by Max Euwe, aims to reach
a French Defence type position, but with Black having
an extra pawn. Play usually continues 6.Bg5 Be7, when
White’s most popular option is 7.Bd3. Black can attack
the centre immediately with 7...c5!? here, as recom-
mended by Joe Gallagher and James Rizzitano.[18] Play
can continue 8.dxc5 Qa5 9.0-0 Qxc5+ 10.Kh1, when
White has to play accurately to prove compensation for
the pawn. Alternatively 7...Nc6 can be considered the
main line of this variation, when 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1 is
the notorious Zilbermints Gambit, sacrificing a second
pawn in order to increase White’s initiative. The Zil-
bermints Gambit has scored well in practice, but objec-
tively it probably does not give White enough compen-
sation for two pawns. However, the alternative 8.a3, de-
spite the loss of time, offers White good compensation
for the pawn, and White can also consider 8.Qd2, allow-
ing the trade of the bishop on d3 but avoiding any loss
of time.[19] White’s main alternative to 7.Bd3 is 7.Qd2,
aiming to castle queenside and giving additional support
to the d4-pawn, while aiming to launch a kingside of-
fensive with Qd2–f4 and meeting ...h6 with a dangerous
Bxh6 sacrifice. Play can continue 7...0-0 8.0-0-0 (8.Bd3
c5! is better for Black) 8...c5 9.Qf4!? cxd4 10.Rxd4[20]
or 7...h6 8.Bh4 (8.Bf4 is also possible, aiming to keep
the Bxh6 sacrifice possibility open, but allowing 8...Bb4
9.Bc4 Ne4)[21] 8...Ne4 9.Nxe4 Bxh4+ 10.g3 Be7 11.Bg2,
when White has some compensation for the pawn but the
final verdict on the resulting positions is still yet to be
reached.
Bogoljubov Defence: 5...g6
The Bogoljubov Defence was played by Diemer himself
in a game against Bogoljubov. By fianchettoing the king’s
bishop Black aims to gain increased pressure against the
d4-pawn following a subsequent ...c5. White’s most com-
mon response is the Studier Attack, 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.0-0
0-0 8.Qe1, intending Qh4, Bh6 and piling pressure on
the kingside, sacrificing pawns at d4 and c2 if appropri-
ate, and Black has to play accurately in order to survive.
However, after Peter Leisebein’s 8...Nc6 9.Qh4 Bg4!, it
9.2. HALOSAR TRAP
is doubtful if White obtains enough compensation for the
pawn against accurate play.[22] An alternative approach is
to castle queenside, play Bh6 and then launch the h-pawn
against the black kingside. The best way to carry out this
approach is via 6.Bf4, as 6.Bg5 (as played by Bogoljubov
in his game against Diemer) is well met by 6...Bg7 7.Qd2
0-0 8.0-0-0 c5!, when Black stands better.[23] If Black
tries the same approach against 6.Bf4, i.e. 6...Bg7 7.Qd2
0-0 8.0-0-0 c5, then 9.d5 a6 10.d6! gives White good
chances.[24]
Ziegler Defence: 5...c6
Black’s most critical response to the Blackmar–Diemer
Gambit is 5...c6, known as the Ziegler Defence due to
Diemer’s tendency to name lines after opponents that first
played them against him, but most of the theory of the line
was established by Gerhart Gunderam, who advocated
5...Bf5.[25] Most modern authors recommend this as
Black’s antidote to the BDG,[26] sometimes via O'Kelly’s
move order 4...c6. The old main line runs 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-
0 e6 8.Ne5, when Black should avoid 8...Bxc2?! 9.Nxf7!,
but instead play 8...Bg6!, when White ends up with very
little to show for the lost pawn.[27] More dangerous for
Black is 8.Ng5, the Alchemy Variation, where Black has
to be careful not to fall for various sacrifices on e6 and f7,
but White probably does not get enough compensation
for the pawn after 8...Bg6 9.Ne2 Bd6. German FIDE
master Stefan Bücker regards Black as clearly better af-
ter 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 0-0,[28] but Christoph Scheerer
believes that White can generate attacking chances with
12.c3 h6 13.Qg4!?.[29] In view of White’s problems prov-
ing compensation in these lines, ChessCafe.com reviewer
Carsten Hansen concluded, “despite all the smoke and
mirrors, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit still isn't viable
beyond club-level or rapid-play games”.[30] However, Lev
Gutman proposed the alternative 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4!? Bg6
9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3, intending to castle queenside and
tie Black down to the f7-pawn, promising long-term po-
sitional compensation for the pawn.[28] There are cur-
rently insufficient practical tests to determine whether it
amounts to enough compensation for the lost pawn.[31]
Black cannot easily deviate from this line, since after
7...Nbd7 White continues 8.Qe2 e6 9.0-0-0, aiming to
launch a strong attack down the e and f-files, and if
9...Bb4 then 10.d5!. If White tries to enter this setup af-
ter 7...e6 8.Qe2, however, then 8...Bb4! prevents White
from safely castling queenside, leaving White with in-
sufficient compensation for the pawn.[31] White also has
the dangerous, though probably objectively insufficient,
second pawn sacrifice 7.g4, analysed extensively by Ste-
fan Bücker.[28] In the 5...c6 move-order White has the
alternative 6.Bd3, usually intending to sacrifice a sec-
ond pawn after 6...Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxd4, lead-
ing to sharp complications, though Black can transpose
back to the Classical Variation of the Teichmann De-
fence with 8...e6, since White’s only good response is
9.Be3.[32] Black can prevent this 6.Bd3 possibility by us-
213
ing O'Kelly’s move-order 4...c6.
Ryder Gambit: 5.Qxf3
Alternatively, White can offer a second pawn with
5.Qxf3. Gary Lane argued in 2000 that White has serious
problems proving enough compensation for the sacrificed
pawns after 5... Qxd4 6. Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5. Black can
also decline the pawn with 5...c6 or 5...e6, holding the
position.[33]
The Halosar Trap (named after Hermann Halosar) fol-
lows after 6... Qb4 7.0-0-0 Bg4? 8.Nb5! threaten-
ing mate with 9.Nxc7#. The black queen cannot cap-
ture the knight because 8...Qxb5 9.Bxb5+ is check, gain-
ing time for the white queen to escape the threat from
the bishop. The line continues 8...Na6 9. Qxb7 Qe4
(Black lost in Diemer–Halosar, Baden-Baden 1934, after
9...Rc8 10.Qxa6) 10. Qxa6 Qxe3+ (Worse is 10...Bxd1
11.Kxd1 Rd8+ 12.Bd2 and White is winning, for exam-
ple 12...Ng4 13.Nxc7+ Kd7 14.Qxa7) 11. Kb1 Qc5 12.
Nf3. Burgess wrote that “Although White has some ad-
vantage, Black has avoided instant loss”.[34]
9.2.4 Fourth-move alternatives for Black
O'Kelly Defence: 4...c6
Many sources recommend the O'Kelly Defence as a
means of transposing to the Ziegler Defence while cut-
ting out White’s 6.Bd3 possibility, since White has noth-
ing better than 5.Bc4, when 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 trans-
poses directly to the 6.Bc4 Bf5 variation of the Ziegler
Defence. Alternatively, 5.Nxe4 is likely to land White in
an inferior version of the Fantasy Variation of the Caro-
Kann Defence, with equality at best in positions that may
not attract Blackmar-Diemer players, 5.fxe4 e5! is good
for Black and other bishop moves allow Black to achieve
superior versions of standard Blackmar–Diemer Gambit
variations.[28][35] 4...c6 also has some independent value,
for example Evgeny Bareev used the continuation 5.f3
b5!? in a game against Nigel Short, achieving a supe-
rior position after 6.Bb3 Be6 7.fxe4 b4 8.Nce2 Nxe4,
but 8.Na4!? improves for White and may give sufficient
compensation for the pawn.[36] Black can also try 5...Bf5,
when White must play accurately to prove enough com-
pensation, but probably obtains sufficient play after 6.g4
Bg6 7.g5 Nd5 8.fxe4 Nxc3 9.bxc3.[37]
Vienna Defence: 4...Bf5
The Vienna Defence was recommended by Matthias
Wahls in his book Modernes Skandinavisch, where he saw
it as a refutation of the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit.[38]
White can play for compensation for a pawn with 5.fxe4
Nxe4 6.Qf3, when both 6...Nxc3 and 6...Nd6 lead to
214 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

complicated positions in which Black often tries to re-
turn a pawn on b7 in order to catch up on develop-
ment, and in some cases secure a positional advantage.
White often does best to continue with a gambit pol-
icy and simply continue developing. The main line runs
6...Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 c6 9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7, when
Black is solid, but White retains enough compensation
for the pawn.[39] Alternatively, 5.g4 aims to regain the
pawn in most cases, e.g. after 5...Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4
Nc6 8.Bb5 e6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Ne2 c5 11.dxc5 Nb4,
when in a reversal of roles, White has an extra pawn but
Black has the initiative and a superior pawn structure.[40]
White can use 5.g4 as a gambit option by continuing with
6.h4!?, which leads to sharp play and approximately equal
chances.[41]
Langeheinicke Defence: 4...e3
The push with 4...e3 is often used by strong players to
avoid the complications arising from 4...exf3 5.Nxf3, but
it is one of Black’s weaker options against the Blackmar-
Diemer as returning the pawn in this way does not sig-
nificantly slow down White’s initiative, and thus Black
struggles to fully equalize in this line. In most lines White
must seek to place a knight on f4 (taking the sting out of
...Nd5) in order to secure an advantage.[42]
3...e6 transpose to the Caro-Kann Defence and French
Defence respectively, and in the former case White can
continue in Blackmar–Diemer Gambit style with 4.f3
or 4.Bc4 intending 5.f3 (which often transposes to the
O'Kelly Defence). After 3...e6, however, White cannot
easily force a Blackmar–Diemer Gambit type position as
4.f3 Bb4 is awkward.
9.2.6 Related gambit ideas
Since Black can sidestep the BDG in several ways, BDG
adherents have developed related gambits:
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c6 (the Caro-Kann Defence) 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.f3 was invented by Philip Stuart Milner-
Barry in 1932 and 4.Bc4 Nf6 (or Bf5) 5.f3 by
Heinrich Von Hennig in 1920 and thus are older than
Diemer’s idea.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 (the French Defense) 3.Be3 is the
Alapin-Diemer Gambit; sometimes White plays the
typical f2–f3 a bit later.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 and 3...Nf6 4.Bg5
dxe4 5.f3 are very rare.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4
6.f3 is the Winckelmann–Reimer Gambit.

9.2.5 Third-move alternatives for Black • 1.d4 d5 2.e4 Nc6 (the Nimzowitsch Defence) 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.d5 may be followed by 5.f3 or 5.f4.
Lemberger Counter-Gambit: 3...e5
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 (c5 may lead to a kind of Benoni)
The Lemberger Counter-Gambit is an important alter- 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 simply transposes.
native, where Black counterattacks against the d4-pawn • 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 is called the Hübsch
instead of defending the attacked e4-pawn. White can Gambit.
head for a drawish endgame with 4.dxe5, e.g. 4...Qxd1+
5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Nxe4 Nxe5, or 5.Nxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4, with • 1.d4 f5 2.e4 (the Staunton Gambit)
equality and few winning chances for either side.[43] Since
these positions typically do not attract gambiteers, White • 1.f3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 is the Gedult Gambit.
often chooses a riskier response in order to generate win- • 1.e4 d5 2.d4 is also a surprising transposition against
ning chances, such as 4.Qh5, 4.Nge2 or 4.Nxe4. Both the Scandinavian Defense.
4.Qh5 and 4.Nge2 are well met by 4...Nc6!, when Black
has good chances of obtaining an advantage, while against
4.Nxe4 the most critical continuation is 4...Qxd4, when The list is incomplete and transpositions abound.
White can continue with either 5.Qe2 or 5.Bd3, with
complications and some compensation for the pawn in 9.2.7 See also
either case, but it is unclear if it is enough.[44]
• List of chess openings
Other options for Black • List of chess openings named after people

3...f5 is an important option for Black, since 4.f3 is well

met by 4...e5!, with some advantage for Black. Instead 9.2.8 References
White does better to prevent ...e5 with 4.Bf4, and then
obtain compensation for a pawn with a subsequent f3.[45] [1] Blackmar–Diemer Gambit, Chess Digest (1977), p.5.
3...Bf5 is well met by 4.f3, and if 4...exf3 then 5.Qxf3 [2] Armand Edward Blackmar at Chessgames.com.
attacking the bishop (thus Black may be better off trans-
posing to the Vienna Defence with 4...Nf6).[46] 3...c6 and [3] http://chessok.com/?page_id=352
9.2. HALOSAR TRAP 215

[4] Scheerer 2011, p. 9. [37] Scheerer 2011, p. 101

[5] “Checkpoint: Bishops before knights” (PDF). Retrieved [38] Scheerer 2011, p. 103
2011-11-06.
[39] Scheerer 2011, p. 116
[6] “Shopping for a tombstone”. Retrieved 2011-11-06.
[40] Scheerer 2011, p. 129
[7] “Topnotch analysis of the Blackmar–Diemer”. Retrieved
2011-11-06. [41] Scheerer 2011, p. 120
[8] Scheerer 2011, p. 10
[42] Scheerer 2011, p. 84
[9] Scheerer 2011, p. 206.
[43] Scheerer 2011, p. 16
[10] Scheerer 2011, p. 216
[44] Scheerer 2011, p. 49
[11] Scheerer 2011, p. 218
[45] Scheerer 2011, p. 68
[12] Scheerer 2011, p. 219.
[46] Scheerer 2011, p. 60
[13] Scheerer 2011, p. 207

[14] Scheerer 2011, p. 233.

9.2.9 Further reading
[15] Scheerer 2011, p. 258
• Avrukh, Boris (2012). Grandmaster Repertoire 11,
[16] Scheerer 2011, p. 262.
Beating 1.d4 Sidelines. Quality Chess. ISBN 978-1-
[17] Scheerer 2011, p. 234 907982-12-5.
[18] Scheerer 2011, p. 145 • Lane, Gary (1995). Blackmar–Diemer Gambit.
[19] Scheerer 2011, p. 155.
Batsford Chess Library / An Owl Book / Henry Holt
and Company. ISBN 0-8050-4230-X.
[20] Scheerer 2011, p. 163
• Purser, Tom & Anders Tejler (1998). Blackmar,
[21] Scheerer 2011, p. 167 Diemer & Gedult. Blackmar Press. ISBN 0-
[22] Scheerer 2011, p. 200
9619606-3-9.

[23] Scheerer 2011, p. 170 • Sawyer, Tim (1992). Blackmar–Diemer Gambit

Keybook. Thinkers’ Press.
[24] Scheerer 2011, p. 204
• Scheerer, Christoph (2011). The Blackmar-Diemer
[25] Scheerer 2011, p. 277
Gambit: A modern guide to a fascinating chess open-
[26] Avrukh, Boris, Grandmaster Repertoire 11, Beating 1.d4 ing. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-598-5.
Sidelines, Quality Chess, 2012, Chapter 2.
• Schiller, Eric (1986). Blackmar Diemer Gambit.
[27] Scheerer 2011, p. 286 Thinkers Pr Inc / Chessco. ISBN 0-931462-52-5.
[28] “Over the Horizons: How to Detect a Novelty” (PDF).
Retrieved 2010-05-07.
9.2.10 External links
[29] Scheerer 2011, p. 293
• Tom Purser’s BDG Pages
[30] “Checkpoint: Good and Bad Weapons” (PDF). Retrieved
2011-11-06. • Blackmar Diemer opening theory
[31] Scheerer 2011, p. 279
• Emil Diemer (1908–90) et les gambits sur le site
[32] Scheerer 2011, p. 300 Mieux jouer aux échecs
[33] “Gary Lane on Ryder Gambit”. Retrieved 2011-11-06. • Blackmar–Diemer Gambit Games
[34] Burgess, Graham (2000). The Mammoth Book of Chess
• Tim Sawyer’s blog
(2nd edition). UK: Robinson. pp. 202–3. ISBN 1-84119-
126-4.
• Opening Report: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 (6503 games)
[35] Scheerer 2011, p. 96
• Stefan Bücker (2009). “Over the Horizons” (PDF).
[36] Scheerer 2011, p. 100 Chesscafe.com.
216 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

9.3 Diemer-Duhm Gambit After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7
6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3
The French Defence is a chess opening characterised by
the moves: White usually tries to exploit his extra space on the king-
side, where he will often play for a mating attack. White
1. e4 e6 tries to do this in the Alekhine–Chatard attack, for exam-
ple. Another example is the following line of the Classi-
cal French: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5
The French has a reputation for solidity and resilience,
Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3 (see dia-
though it can result in a somewhat cramped game for
gram). White’s light-square bishop eyes the weak h7-
Black in the early stages. Black often gains counterat-
pawn, which is usually defended by a knight on f6 but here
tacking possibilities on the queenside while White tends
it has been pushed away by e5. A typical way for White to
to concentrate on the kingside.
continue his attack is 9...cxd4 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+
when Black must give up his queen to avoid being mated,
continuing with 11...Qxg5 12.fxg5 dxc3. Black has three
9.3.1 Basics minor pieces for the queen, which gives him a slight ma-
terial superiority, but his king is vulnerable and White has
Position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
good attacking chances.
Apart from a piece attack, White may play for the ad-
Following the opening moves 1.e4 e6, the game usually
vance of his kingside pawns (an especially common idea
continues 2.d4 d5 (see below for alternatives). White
in the endgame), which usually involves f2–f4, g2–g4 and
makes a claim to the centre, while Black immediately
then f4–f5 to utilise his natural spatial advantage on that
challenges the pawn on e4.
side of the board. A white pawn on f5 can be very strong
White’s options include defending the e4 pawn with as it may threaten to capture on e6 or advance to f6.
3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2, exchanging with 3.exd5, or advancing Sometimes pushing the h-pawn to h5 or h6 may also be
the pawn with 3.e5, each of which lead to different types effective. A modern idea is for White to gain space on the
of positions. Note that 3.Bd3 allows 3...dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6, queenside by playing a2–a3 and b2–b4. If implemented
after which White must concede to Black either a tempo successfully, this will further restrict Black’s pieces.
or the advantage of the two bishops.
Tarrasch–Teichmann, 1912
Position after 15...Nxc5
9.3.2 General themes
One of the drawbacks of the French Defence for Black
Typical pawn structure is his queen’s bishop, which is blocked in by his pawn on
e6. If Black is unable to free it by means of the pawn
breaks ...c5 and/or ...f6, it can remain passive through-
See the diagram for the pawn structure most typical of the
out the game. An often-cited example of the potential
French. Black has more space on the queenside, so tends
weakness of this bishop is S. Tarrasch–R. Teichmann,
to focus on that side of the board, almost always playing
San Sebastián 1912, in which the diagrammed position
...c7–c5 at some point to attack White’s pawn chain at its
was reached after fifteen moves of a Classical French.
base, and may follow up by advancing his a- and b-pawns.
Black’s position is passive because his light-square bishop
Alternatively or simultaneously, Black will play against
is hemmed in by pawns on a6, b5, d5, e6 and f7. White
White’s centre, which is cramping his position. The flank
will probably try to exchange Black’s knight, which is the
attack ...c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so
only one of his pieces that has any scope. Although it
Black will often play ...f7–f6. If White supports the
might be possible for Black to hold on for a draw, it is not
pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two com-
easy and, barring any mistakes by White, Black will have
mon ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by
few chances to create counterplay, which is why, for many
playing ...g7–g5. The pawn on g5 may also threaten to
years, the classical lines fell out of favour, and 3...Bb4 be-
advance to g4 to drive away a white knight on f3, aug-
gan to be seen more frequently after World War I, due to
menting Black’s play against the White centre. Another
the efforts of Nimzowitsch and Botvinnik. In Tarrasch–
idea is to play ...fxe5, and if White recaptures with fxe5,
Teichmann, White won after 41 moves. In order to avoid
then Black gains an open f-file for his rook. Then, as
this fate, Black usually makes it a priority early in the
White usually has a knight on f3 guarding his pawns on
game to find a useful post for the bishop. Black can
d4 and e5, Black may sacrifice the exchange with ...Rxf3
play ...Bd7–a4 to attack a pawn on c2, which occurs in
to destroy the white centre and attack the king. On the
many lines of the Winawer Variation. If Black’s f-pawn
other hand, if White plays dxe5, then the a7–g1 diago-
has moved to f6, then Black may also consider bringing
nal is opened, making it less desirable for White to castle
the bishop to g6 or h5 via d7 and e8. If White’s light-
kingside.
9.3. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 217

square bishop is on the f1–a6 diagonal, Black can try to at some point. This solid line has undergone a modest re-
exchange it by playing ...b6 and ...Ba6, or ...Qb6 followed vival, featuring in many GM games as a drawing weapon
by ...Bd7–Bb5. but theory still gives White a slight edge. After 3... dxe4
A general theme in the Advance French is that White 4. Nxe4, Black has the following options:
would like to put his light-square bishop on d3, maximis-
• The most popular line is: 4...Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6
ing its scope. White cannot play this move immediately
6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 when Black is ready for ...c5.
after 5...Qb6 without losing the d4 pawn. Black can-
not gain the extra pawn immediately since 6.Bd3 cxd4 • 4...Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 (the Fort Knox Variation) acti-
7.cxd4 Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+ wins the black vating the light-square bishop, which is often played
queen by a discovered attack with check. Thus, theory by Alexander Rustemov.
holds that Black should play 7...Bd7 instead to obviate
this idea. White has often sacrificed the d-pawn anyway
by continuing 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Nc3. This is Winawer Variation: 3...Bb4 This variation, named
the Milner-Barry Gambit, named after Sir Stuart Milner- after Szymon Winawer and pioneered by Nimzowitsch
Barry, considered of marginal soundness by present-day and Botvinnik, is one of the main systems in the French,
theory, and has never had proponents at the highest levels due chiefly to the latter’s efforts in the 1940s, becoming
of play. the most often seen rejoinder to 3.Nc3, though in the
1980s, the Classical Variation with 3...Nf6 began a re-
Another theme is that White wants to expand on the king- vival, and has since become more popular.
side and attack the black king; the long-term advantages
in many French structures lie with Black, so White is of- 3... Bb4 pins the knight on c3, forcing White to resolve
ten more or less forced to attack by various methods, such the central tension. White normally clarifies the central
as driving the black knight off f5 with g4 or playing h4– situation for the moment with 4. e5, gaining space and
h5 to expel the knight from g6. Because of the blocked hoping to show that Black’s b4-bishop is misplaced. The
centre, sacrificial mating attacks are often possible. It main line then is: 4... c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3, resulting
is said by French players that the classic bishop sacrifice in the diagrammed position:
(Bd3xh7) should be evaluated every move. Black, how- After 3...Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3
ever, often welcomes an attack as the French is notorious
for producing defensive tactics and maneuvers that leave
While White has doubled pawns on the queenside, which
Black up material for an endgame. Viktor Korchnoi who,
form the basis for Black’s counterplay, they can also help
along with Botvinnik, was the strongest player who advo-
White since they strengthen his centre and give him a
cated the French, talked about how he would psycholog-
semi-open b-file. White has a spatial advantage on the
ically lure his opponents into attacking him so that they
kingside, where Black is even weaker than usual because
would eventually sacrifice material and he would halt his
he has traded off his dark-square bishop. Combined with
opponent’s army and win the endgame easily.
the bishop pair, this gives White attacking chances, which
he must attempt to utilise as the long-term features of this
pawn structure favour Black.
9.3.3 Main line: 2.d4 d5
In the diagrammed position, Black most frequently plays
3.Nc3 6... Ne7 (The main alternative is 6...Qc7, which can sim-
ply transpose to main lines after 7.Qg4 Ne7, but Black
Played in over 40% of all games after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 also has the option of 7.Qg4 f5 or ...f6. 6...Qa5 has re-
d5, 3. Nc3 is the most commonly seen line against the cently become a popular alternative). Now White can ex-
French. Black has three main options, 3...dxe4 (the Ru- ploit the absence of Black’s dark-square bishop by play-
binstein Variation), 3...Bb4 (the Winawer Variation) ing 7. Qg4, giving Black two choices: he may sacri-
and 3...Nf6 (the Classical Variation). An eccentric idea fice his kingside pawns with 7...Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7
is 3...Nc6!? 4.Nf3 Nf6 with the idea of 5.e5 Ne4; Ger- cxd4 but destroy White’s centre in return, the so-called
man IM Helmut Reefschlaeger has been fond of this "Poisoned Pawn Variation"; or he can play 7...0-0 8.Bd3
move. Nbc6, which avoids giving up material, but leaves the
king on the flank where White is trying to attack. Ex-
perts on the 7.Qg4 line include Judit Polgár.
Rubinstein Variation: 3...dxe4 After 3.Nc3 dxe4 If the tactical complications of 7.Qg4 are not to White’s
4.Nxe4 taste, 7.Nf3 and 7.a4 are good positional alternatives:
7. Nf3 is a natural developing move, and White usually
This variation is named after Akiba Rubinstein and can follows it up by developing the king’s bishop to d3 or e2
also arise from a different move order: 3.Nd2 dxe4. (occasionally to b5) and castling kingside. This is called
White has freer development and more space in the cen- the Winawer Advance Variation. This line often contin-
tre, which Black intends to neutralise by playing ...c7–c5 ues 7... Bd7 8. Bd3 c4 9. Be2 Ba4 10. 0-0 Qa5 11.
218
Bd2 Nbc6 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nh3 0-0-0. Its assessment is Classical Variation:
unclear, but most likely Black would be considered “com- 3...Nf6
fortable” here.
The purpose behind 7. a4 is threefold: it prepares Bc1–
a3, taking advantage of the absence of Black’s dark-
square bishop. It also prevents Black from playing
...Qa5–a4 or ...Bd7–a4 attacking c2, and if Black plays
...b6 (followed by ...Ba6 to trade off the bad bishop),
White may play a5 to attack the b6-pawn.
Sidelines 5th move deviations for White include:
• 5.Qg4
• 5.dxc5
• 5.Nf3
• 5.Bd2
4th move deviations for White include:
• 4.exd5 exd5, transposing to a line of the Exchange
Variation.
• 4.Ne2 (the Alekhine Gambit) 4...dxe4 5.a3 Be7
(5...Bxc3+ is necessary if Black wants to try to hold
the pawn) 6.Nxe4 to prevent Black from doubling
his pawns.
• 4.Bd3 defending e4.
• 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4, another attempt to
exploit Black’s weakness on g7.
• 4.e5 c5 5.Bd2, again preventing the doubled pawns
and making possible 6.Nb5, where the knight may
hop into d6 or simply defend d4.
• 4.Bd2 (an old move sometimes played by Nezh-
metdinov, notably against Mikhail Tal)
Deviations for Black include:
• 4...Ne7 although this move usually transposes to the
main line.
• 4...b6 followed by ...Ba6, or 4...Qd7 with the idea
of meeting 5.Qg4 with 5...f5. However, theory cur-
rently prefers White’s chances in both lines.
• Another popular way for Black to deviate is 4.e5
c5 5.a3 Ba5, the Armenian Variation, as its the-
ory and practice have been much enriched by play-
ers from that country, the most notable of whom is
Rafael Vaganian. Black maintains the pin on the
knight, which White usually tries to break by play-
ing 6.b4 cxb4 7.Qg4 or 7.Nb5 (usually 7.Nb5 bxa3+
8.c3 Bc7 9.Bxa3 and white has the upper hand).
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
3...Nf6 Classical Variation
This is another major system in the French. White can
continue with the following options:
4.Bg5 White threatens 5.e5, attacking the pinned
knight. Black has a number of ways to meet this threat:
• Burn Variation, named after Amos Burn is the
most common reply at the top level: 4... dxe4 5.
Nxe4 and usually there now follows: 5... Be7 6.
Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Nf3 Nd7 or 7... 0-0, resulting in
a position resembling those arising from the Ru-
binstein Variation. However, here Black has the
bishop pair, with greater dynamic chances (although
White’s knight is well placed on e4), so this line is
more popular than the Rubinstein and has long been
a favourite of Evgeny Bareev. Black can also try 5...
Be7 6. Bxf6 gxf6, as played by Alexander Moroze-
vich and Gregory Kaidanov; by following up with
...f5 and ...Bf6, Black obtains active piece play in
return for his shattered pawn structure. Another line
that resembles the Rubinstein is 5... Nbd7 6. Nf3
Be7 (6...h6 is also tried) 7. Nxf6+ Bxf6.
• 4... Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 used to be the main line and
remains important, even though the Burn Variation
has overtaken it in popularity. The usual continua-
tion is 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4 0-0 8. Nf3 c5, when
White has a number of options, including 9.Bd3,
9.Qd2 and 9.dxc5. An alternative for White is the
gambit 6. h4, which was devised by Adolf Albin
and played by Chatard, but not taken seriously un-
til the game Alekhine–Fahrni, Mannheim 1914. It
is known today as the Albin–Chatard Attack or
the Alekhine–Chatard Attack. After 6... Bxg5 7.
hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9. Nf4 Nc6 10. Qg4 (the
reason for 8.Nh3 rather than 8.Nf3), White has sac-
rificed a pawn to open the h-file, thereby increasing
his attacking chances on the kingside. Black may
also decline the gambit in several ways such 6... a6
and 6... f6, but most strong players prefer 6... c5.
• A third choice for Black is to counterattack with
the McCutcheon Variation. In this variation, the
second player ignores White’s threat of e4-e5 and
instead plays 4... Bb4. The main line continues:
5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4.
At this point Black may play 8...g6, which weak-
ens the kingside dark squares but keeps the option
of castling queenside, or 8...Kf8. The McCutcheon
Variation is named for John Lindsay McCutcheon
of Philadelphia (1857–1905), who brought the vari-
ation to public attention when he used it to defeat
World Champion Steinitz in a simultaneous exhibi-
tion in Manhattan in 1885.[1][2][3]
9.3. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 219

4.e5 The Steinitz Variation (named after Wilhelm time for development by harassing Black’s
Steinitz) is 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 (the most common but queen. This interplay of static and dynamic
White has other options: 5.Nce2, the Shirov–Anand advantages is the reason why this line has be-
Variation), White gets ready to bolster his centre with come popular in the last decade. Play usu-
c2–c3 and f2–f4. Or 5.Nf3 (aiming for piece play) 5... ally continues 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7.
c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 (7.Nce2 transposes to the Shirov– 0-0 Nf6 (preventing 8.Ne4) 8. Nb3 Nc6 9.
Anand Variation; a trap is 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Ndxe5! Nbxd4 Nxd4, and here White may stay in the
9.fxe5 Qh4+ winning a pawn), Black has several options. middlegame with 10.Nxd4 or offer the trade
He may step up pressure on d4 by playing 7...Qb6 or of queens with 10.Qxd4, with the former far
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6, or choose to complete his devel- more commonly played today.
opment, either beginning with the kingside by playing
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5, or with the queenside by playing • 3... Nf6 While the objective of 3...c5 was to break
7...a6 8.Qd2 b5. open the centre, 3... Nf6 aims to close it. After 4.
e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 (6...b6 intends ...Ba6
next to get rid of Black’s “bad” light-square bishop,
Tarrasch Variation: 3.Nd2 a recurring idea in the French) 7. Ne2 (leaving f3
open for the queen’s knight) 7... cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9.
After 3.Nd2 Nf6 exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 Black has freed his pieces
at the cost of having a backward pawn on e6. White
The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tar- may also choose to preserve his pawn on e5 by play-
rasch. This move became particularly popular during the ing 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. f4 Nc6 7. Ndf3, but
1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to his development is slowed as a result, and Black will
great effect. Though less aggressive than the alternate gain dynamic chances if he can open the position to
3.Nc3, it is still used by top-level players seeking a small, advantage.
safe advantage. • 3... Nc6 is known as the Guimard Variation: after
Like 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 protects e4, but is different in several 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nd7 Black will exchange White’s
key respects: it does not block White’s c-pawn from ad- cramping e-pawn next move by ...f6. However,
vancing, which means he can play c3 at some point to sup- Black does not exert any pressure on d4 because he
port his d4-pawn. Hence, it avoids the Winawer Variation cannot play ...c5, so White should maintain a slight
as 3...Bb4 is now readily answered by 4.c3. On the other advantage, with 6.Be2 or 6 Nb3.
hand, 3.Nd2 develops the knight to an arguably less ac-
• 3... Be7 is known as the Morozevich Varia-
tive square than 3.Nc3, and in addition, it hems in White’s
tion.[4] A fashionable line among top GMs in re-
dark-square bishop. Hence, white will typically have to
cent years, this odd-looking move aims to prove that
spend an extra tempo moving the knight from d2 at some
every White move now has its drawbacks, e.g. af-
point before developing said bishop.
ter 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 White cannot play f4,
whereas 4.Bd3 c5 5.dxc5 Nf6 and 4.e5 c5 5. Qg4
• 3... c5 4. exd5 and now Black has two ways to re- Kf8!? lead to obscure complications. 3...h6?!,
capture: with a similar rationale, has also gained some ad-
• 4... exd5 this was a staple of many old venturous followers in recent years, including GM
Karpov–Korchnoi battles, including seven Alexander Morozevich.
games in their 1974 match, usually leads to • Another rare line is 3... a6, which gained some pop-
Black having an isolated queen’s pawn (see ularity in the 1970s. Similar to 3...Be7, the idea is
isolated pawn). The main line continues 5. to play a waiting move to make White declare his in-
Ngf3 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. 0-0 Nge7 8. dxc5 tentions before Black commits to a plan of his own.
Bxc5 9. Nb3 Bb6 with a position where, if 3...a6 also controls the b5-square, which is typically
White can neutralise the activity of Black’s useful for Black in most French lines because, for
pieces in the middlegame, he will have a slight example, White no longer has the option of playing
advantage in the ending. Another possibility Bb5.
for White is 5.Bb5+ Bd7 (5...Nc6 is also pos-
sible) 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 to trade off the bish-
ops and make it more difficult for Black to re- Exchange Variation: 3.exd5 exd5
gain the pawn.
• 4... Qxd5 is an important alternative for After 3.exd5 exd5
Black; the idea is to trade his c- and d-pawns
for White’s d- and e-pawns, leaving Black with Many players who begin with 1.e4 find that the French
an extra centre pawn. This constitutes a slight Defence is the most difficult opening for them to play
structural advantage, but in return White gains against due to the closed structure and unique strategies
220
of the system. Thus, many players choose to play the ex-
change so that the position becomes simple and clearcut.
White makes no effort to exploit the advantage of the
first move, and has often chosen this line with expec-
tation of an early draw, and indeed draws often occur
if neither side breaks the symmetry. An extreme ex-
ample was Capablanca–Maróczy, Lake Hopatcong 1926,
which went: 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 Bg4
8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c6 10.c3 Qc7 11.Qc2 Rfe8 12.Bh4
Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Rxe8+ Rxe8 16.Bxg6
hxg6 17.Re1 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Ne8 19.Nd3 Nd6 20.Qb3
a6 21.Kf1 ½–½ (the game can be viewed here).
Despite the symmetrical pawn structure, White cannot
force a draw. An obsession with obtaining one some-
times results in embarrassment for White, as in Tatai–
Korchnoi, Beer Sheva 1978, which continued 4.Bd3
c5!? 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0
Bxc5 10.c3 Re8 11.Qc2 Qd6 12.Nbd2 Qg3 13.Bf5 Re2
14.Nd4 Nxd4 0–1 (the game can be watched here). A less
extreme example was Mikhail Gurevich–Short, Manila
1990 where White, a strong Russian grandmaster, played
openly for the draw but was ground down by Short in 42
moves.
To create genuine winning chances, White will often play
c2–c4 at some stage to put pressure on Black’s d5-pawn.
Black can give White an isolated queen’s pawn by cap-
turing on c4, but this gives White’s pieces greater free-
dom, which may lead to attacking chances. This occurs in
lines such as 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 (played by GMs Normunds
Miezis and Maurice Ashley) and 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4, which
may transpose to the Petroff. Conversely, if White de-
clines to do this, Black may play ...c7–c5 himself, e.g.
4.Bd3 c5, as in the above-cited Tatai–Korchnoi game.
If c2–c4 is not played, White and Black have two main
piece setups. White may put his pieces on Nf3, Bd3,
Bg5 (pinning the black knight), Nc3, Qd2 or the queen’s
knight can go to d2 instead and White can support the
centre with c3 and perhaps play Qb3. Conversely, when
the queen’s knight is on c3, the king’s knight may go to
e2 when the enemy bishop and knight can be kept out of
the key squares e4 and g4 by f3. When the knight is on
c3 in the first and last of the above strategies, White may
choose either short or long castling. The positions are so
symmetrical that the options and strategies are the same
for both sides.
Another way to unbalance the position is for White or
Black to castle on opposite sides of the board. An ex-
ample of this is the line 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4
7.0-0 Nge7 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nbd2 0-0-0.
Advance Variation: 3.e5
After 3.e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3
The main line of the Advance Variation continues 3... c5 ers over the years, including GMs Pal Benko, Bobby Fis-
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 and then we have a branching point:
5... Qb6, the idea is to increase the pressure on d4
and eventually undermine the White centre. The queen
also attacks the b2-square, so White’s dark-square bishop
cannot easily defend the d4-pawn without losing the b2-
pawn. White’s most common replies are 6.a3 and 6.Be2.
6.a3 is currently the most important line in the Advance:
it prepares 7.b4, gaining space on the queenside. Black
may prevent this with 6...c4 intending to take en passant if
White plays b4, which creates a closed game where Black
fights for control of the b3-square. On the other hand,
Black may continue developing with 6...Nh6, intending
...Nf5, which might seem strange as White can double
the pawn with Bxh6, but this is actually considered good
for Black. Black plays ...Bg7 and ...0-0 and Black’s king
has adequate defence and White will miss his apparently
'bad' dark-square bishop.
6.Be2 is the other alternative, aiming simply to castle.
Once again, a common Black response is 6...Nh6 intend-
ing 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 attacking d4. White usually re-
sponds to this threat with 7.Bxh6 or 7.b3 preparing Bb2.
5... Bd7 was mentioned by Greco as early as 1620, and
was revived and popularised by Viktor Korchnoi in the
1970s. Now a main line, the idea behind the move is that
since Black usually plays ...Bd7 sooner or later, he plays
it right away and waits for White to show his hand. If
White plays 6.a3 in response, modern theory says that
Black equalises or is better after 6...f6! The lines are
complex, but the main point is that a3 is a wasted move if
the black queen is not on b6 and so Black uses the extra
tempo to attack the white centre immediately.
5...Nh6 has recently become a popular alternative
There are alternative strategies to 3... c5 that were tried
in the early 20th century such as 3...b6, intending to
fianchetto the bad bishop and which can transpose to
Owen’s Defence or 3...Nc6, played by Carlos Guimard,
intending to keep the bad bishop on c8 or d7 which is pas-
sive and obtains little counterplay. Also, 4...Qb6 5.Nf3
Bd7 intending 6...Bb5 to trade off the “bad” queen’s
bishop is possible.
9.3.4 Early deviations for White
After 1.e4 e6, almost 90 percent of all games continue
2.d4 d5, but White can try other ideas. The most im-
portant of these is 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2, with a version of the
King’s Indian Attack. White will likely play Ngf3, g3,
Bg2, 0-0, c3 and/or Re1 in some order on the next few
moves. Black has several ways to combat this setup:
3...c5 followed by ...Nc6, ...Bd6, ...Nf6 or ...Nge7 and
...0-0 is common, 3...Nf6 4.Ngf3 Nc6 plans ...dxe4 and
...e5 to block in the Bg2, and 3...Nf6 4.Ngf3 b6 makes
...Ba6 possible if White’s light-square bishop leaves the
a6–f1 diagonal. 2.d3 has been used by many leading play-
9.3. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 221

cher and Lev Psakhis. 1834 (although earlier examples of games with the open-
ing do exist). It was Chamouillet, one of the players of
• 2.f4 is the Labourdonnais Variation, named after the Paris[7]team, who persuaded the others to adopt this
Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, the 19th- defence.
century French master.[5] As a reply to 1.e4, the French Defence received relatively
little attention in the nineteenth century compared to
• 2.Qe2 is the Chigorin Variation, which discour- 1...e5. The first world chess champion Wilhelm Steinitz
ages 2...d5 because after 3.exd5 the black pawn is said “I have never in my life played the French Defence,
pinned, meaning Black would need to recapture with which is the dullest of all openings”.[8] In the early 20th
the queen. Black usually replies 2...c5, after which century, Géza Maróczy was perhaps the first world-class
play can resemble the 2.d3 variation or the Closed player to make it his primary weapon against 1.e4. For
Variation of the Sicilian Defence. a long time, it was the third most popular reply to 1.e4,
behind only 1...c5 and 1...e5. However, according to the
• 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 is the Two Knights Variation:
Mega Database 2007, in 2006, 1...e6 was second only to
3...d4 and 3...Nf6 are good replies for Black.
the Sicilian in popularity.
• 2.c4 (attempting to discourage 2...d5 by Black) is Historically important contributors to the theory of
the Steiner Variation. But Black can reply 2...d5 the defence include Mikhail Botvinnik, Viktor Korch-
anyway, when after 3.cxd5 exd5 4.exd5 Nf6 the only noi, Aron Nimzowitsch, Tigran Petrosian, Lev Psakhis,
way for White to hold on to his extra pawn on d5 is Wolfgang Uhlmann and Rafael Vaganian. More re-
to play 5.Bb5+. Black gets good compensation in cently, its leading practitioners include Evgeny Bareev,
return for the pawn, however. Alexey Dreev, Mikhail Gurevich, Alexander Khalifman,
Smbat Lputian, Alexander Morozevich, Teimour Rad-
• 2.Bb5 has occasionally been tried. Notably, Henry jabov, Nigel Short, Gata Kamsky, and Yury Shulman.
Bird defeated Max Fleissig with the variation during
the Vienna 1873 chess tournament.[6] The Exchange Variation was recommended by Howard
Staunton in the 19th century,[9] but has been in decline
• 2.b3 leads to the Réti Gambit after 2...d5 3.Bb2 ever since. In the early 1990s Garry Kasparov briefly ex-
dxe4, but Black can also decline it with 3...Nf6 4.e5 perimented with it before switching to 3.Nc3. Note that
Nd7 with White going for f4 and Qg4 before putting Black’s game is made much easier as his queen’s bishop
the knight on f3. has been liberated. It has the reputation of giving im-
mediate equality to Black, due to the symmetrical pawn
There are also a few rare continuations after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 structure.
d5, including 3.Bd3 (the Schlechter Variation), 3.Be3 Like the Exchange, the Advance Variation was fre-
(the Alapin Gambit), and 3.c4 (the Diemer-Duhm Gam- quently played in the early days of the French Defence.
bit, which can also be reached via the Queen’s Gambit Aron Nimzowitsch believed it to be White’s best choice
Declined). and enriched its theory with many ideas. However, the
Advance declined in popularity throughout most of the
20th century until it was revived in the 1980s by GM
9.3.5 Early deviations for Black and prominent opening theoretician Evgeny Sveshnikov,
who continues to be a leading expert in this line. In re-
Although 2...d5 is the most consistent move after 1.e4 e6 cent years, it has become nearly as popular as 3.Nd2; GM
2.d4, Black occasionally plays other moves. Chief among Alexander Grischuk has championed it successfully at the
them is 2...c5, the Franco-Benoni Defence, so-called highest levels. It is also a popular choice at the club level
because it features the c7–c5 push characteristic of the due to the availability of a simple, straightforward plan
Benoni Defence. White may continue 3.d5, when play involving attacking chances and extra space.
can transpose into the Benoni, though White has extra
options since c2–c4 is not mandated. 3.Nf3, transposing
into a normal Sicilian Defence, and 3.c3, transposing into 9.3.7 ECO codes
a line of the Alapin Sicilian (usually arrived at after 1.e4
c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4) are also common. Play may also lead The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings includes an al-
back to the French; for example, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.c3 d5 phanumeric classification system for openings that is
4.e5 transposes into the Advance Variation. widely used in chess literature. Codes C00 to C19 are
the French Defence, broken up in the following way (all
apart from C00 start with the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5):
9.3.6 History

The French Defence is named after a match played by • C00 – 1.e4 e6 without 2.d4, or 2.d4 without 2...d5
correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in (early deviations)
222
• C01 – 2.d4 d5 (includes the Exchange Variation,
3.exd5)
• C02 – 3.e5 (Advance Variation)
• C03 – 3.Nd2 (includes 3...Be7; C03–C09 cover the
Tarrasch Variation)
• C04 – 3.Nd2 Nc6 (Guimard Variation)
• C05 – 3.Nd2 Nf6
• C06 – 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3
• C07 – 3.Nd2 c5 (includes 4.exd5 Qxd5)
• C08 – 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5
• C09 – 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 Nc6
• C10 – 3.Nc3 (includes the Rubinstein Variation,
3...dxe4)
• C11 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 (includes the Steinitz Variation,
4.e5; C11–C14 cover the Classical Variation)
• C12 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (includes the McCutcheon
Variation, 4...Bb4)
• C13 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 (Burn Variation)
• C14 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7
• C15 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 (C15–C19 cover the Winawer
Variation) 9.3.10
• C16 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5
• C17 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5
• C18 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 (includes the Arme-
nian Variation, 5...Ba5)
• C19 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7
7.Nf3 and 7.a4
9.3.8 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
9.3.9 References
[1] T.D. Harding, French: MacCutcheon [sic] and Advance
Lines, Batsford, 1979, pp. 12, 56. ISBN 0-7134-2026-X.
[2] Although many sources refer to John Lindsay Mc-
Cutcheon and his eponymous variation as “Mac-
Cutcheon”, “McCutcheon” is the correct spelling. Jeremy
Gaige, Chess Personalia, McFarland & Company, 1987,
pp. 260, 275. ISBN 0-7864-2353-6; David Hooper and
Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd
ed. 1992), Oxford University Press, p. 240, p. 478 n.
1205. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
[3] Steinitz–McCutcheon, New York simul 1885
[4] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/688
[5] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=4&n=209&
ms=e4.e6.f4&ns=3.16.209
[6] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/2183872/
rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/4p3/1B6/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/
RNBQK1NR%20b%20KQkq%20-%201%202
[7] Le Palamède edited by St. Amant (1846), p. 20.
[8] “The Cable Match Between Messrs.Tschigorin and
Steinitz”. The International Chess Magazine. 7.1. January
1891. p. 27. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
[9] p369, Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook,
1847, H.G.Bohn.
Bibliography
• Watson, John (2003). Play the French (3rd ed.). Ev-
eryman Chess.
• Eingorn, Viacheslav (2008). Chess Explained: The
French. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-95-
6.
Further reading
• Keene, Raymond (1984). French Defence: Tarrasch
Variation. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-4577-7.
• Psakhis, Lev (2003). Advance and Other
Anti-French Variations. Batsford. ISBN
9780713488432.
• Psakhis, Lev (2003). French Defence 3 Nd2. Ster-
ling Pub. ISBN 9780713488258.
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2008). The Flexible French.
New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-245-1.
• Tzermiadianos, Andreas (2008). How to Beat the
French Defence: The Essential Guide to the Tar-
rasch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781857445671.
• Vitiugov, Nikita (2010). The French Defence.
Chess Stars. ISBN 978-954-8782-76-0.
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2010). The Wonderful
Winawer. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-327-
4.
9.3.11 External links
• The Anatomy of the French Advance
9.4. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT 223

9.4 Diemer-Duhm Gambit After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7
6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3
The French Defence is a chess opening characterised by
the moves: White usually tries to exploit his extra space on the king-
side, where he will often play for a mating attack. White
1. e4 e6 tries to do this in the Alekhine–Chatard attack, for exam-
ple. Another example is the following line of the Classi-
cal French: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5
The French has a reputation for solidity and resilience,
Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3 (see dia-
though it can result in a somewhat cramped game for
gram). White’s light-square bishop eyes the weak h7-
Black in the early stages. Black often gains counterat-
pawn, which is usually defended by a knight on f6 but here
tacking possibilities on the queenside while White tends
it has been pushed away by e5. A typical way for White to
to concentrate on the kingside.
continue his attack is 9...cxd4 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+
when Black must give up his queen to avoid being mated,
continuing with 11...Qxg5 12.fxg5 dxc3. Black has three
9.4.1 Basics minor pieces for the queen, which gives him a slight ma-
terial superiority, but his king is vulnerable and White has
Position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
good attacking chances.
Apart from a piece attack, White may play for the ad-
Following the opening moves 1.e4 e6, the game usually
vance of his kingside pawns (an especially common idea
continues 2.d4 d5 (see below for alternatives). White
in the endgame), which usually involves f2–f4, g2–g4 and
makes a claim to the centre, while Black immediately
then f4–f5 to utilise his natural spatial advantage on that
challenges the pawn on e4.
side of the board. A white pawn on f5 can be very strong
White’s options include defending the e4 pawn with as it may threaten to capture on e6 or advance to f6.
3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2, exchanging with 3.exd5, or advancing Sometimes pushing the h-pawn to h5 or h6 may also be
the pawn with 3.e5, each of which lead to different types effective. A modern idea is for White to gain space on the
of positions. Note that 3.Bd3 allows 3...dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6, queenside by playing a2–a3 and b2–b4. If implemented
after which White must concede to Black either a tempo successfully, this will further restrict Black’s pieces.
or the advantage of the two bishops.
Tarrasch–Teichmann, 1912
Position after 15...Nxc5
9.4.2 General themes
One of the drawbacks of the French Defence for Black
Typical pawn structure is his queen’s bishop, which is blocked in by his pawn on
e6. If Black is unable to free it by means of the pawn
breaks ...c5 and/or ...f6, it can remain passive through-
See the diagram for the pawn structure most typical of the
out the game. An often-cited example of the potential
French. Black has more space on the queenside, so tends
weakness of this bishop is S. Tarrasch–R. Teichmann,
to focus on that side of the board, almost always playing
San Sebastián 1912, in which the diagrammed position
...c7–c5 at some point to attack White’s pawn chain at its
was reached after fifteen moves of a Classical French.
base, and may follow up by advancing his a- and b-pawns.
Black’s position is passive because his light-square bishop
Alternatively or simultaneously, Black will play against
is hemmed in by pawns on a6, b5, d5, e6 and f7. White
White’s centre, which is cramping his position. The flank
will probably try to exchange Black’s knight, which is the
attack ...c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so
only one of his pieces that has any scope. Although it
Black will often play ...f7–f6. If White supports the
might be possible for Black to hold on for a draw, it is not
pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two com-
easy and, barring any mistakes by White, Black will have
mon ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by
few chances to create counterplay, which is why, for many
playing ...g7–g5. The pawn on g5 may also threaten to
years, the classical lines fell out of favour, and 3...Bb4 be-
advance to g4 to drive away a white knight on f3, aug-
gan to be seen more frequently after World War I, due to
menting Black’s play against the White centre. Another
the efforts of Nimzowitsch and Botvinnik. In Tarrasch–
idea is to play ...fxe5, and if White recaptures with fxe5,
Teichmann, White won after 41 moves. In order to avoid
then Black gains an open f-file for his rook. Then, as
this fate, Black usually makes it a priority early in the
White usually has a knight on f3 guarding his pawns on
game to find a useful post for the bishop. Black can
d4 and e5, Black may sacrifice the exchange with ...Rxf3
play ...Bd7–a4 to attack a pawn on c2, which occurs in
to destroy the white centre and attack the king. On the
many lines of the Winawer Variation. If Black’s f-pawn
other hand, if White plays dxe5, then the a7–g1 diago-
has moved to f6, then Black may also consider bringing
nal is opened, making it less desirable for White to castle
the bishop to g6 or h5 via d7 and e8. If White’s light-
kingside.
224 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

square bishop is on the f1–a6 diagonal, Black can try to at some point. This solid line has undergone a modest re-
exchange it by playing ...b6 and ...Ba6, or ...Qb6 followed vival, featuring in many GM games as a drawing weapon
by ...Bd7–Bb5. but theory still gives White a slight edge. After 3... dxe4
A general theme in the Advance French is that White 4. Nxe4, Black has the following options:
would like to put his light-square bishop on d3, maximis-
• The most popular line is: 4...Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6
ing its scope. White cannot play this move immediately
6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 when Black is ready for ...c5.
after 5...Qb6 without losing the d4 pawn. Black can-
not gain the extra pawn immediately since 6.Bd3 cxd4 • 4...Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 (the Fort Knox Variation) acti-
7.cxd4 Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+ wins the black vating the light-square bishop, which is often played
queen by a discovered attack with check. Thus, theory by Alexander Rustemov.
holds that Black should play 7...Bd7 instead to obviate
this idea. White has often sacrificed the d-pawn anyway
by continuing 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Nc3. This is Winawer Variation: 3...Bb4 This variation, named
the Milner-Barry Gambit, named after Sir Stuart Milner- after Szymon Winawer and pioneered by Nimzowitsch
Barry, considered of marginal soundness by present-day and Botvinnik, is one of the main systems in the French,
theory, and has never had proponents at the highest levels due chiefly to the latter’s efforts in the 1940s, becoming
of play. the most often seen rejoinder to 3.Nc3, though in the
1980s, the Classical Variation with 3...Nf6 began a re-
Another theme is that White wants to expand on the king- vival, and has since become more popular.
side and attack the black king; the long-term advantages
in many French structures lie with Black, so White is of- 3... Bb4 pins the knight on c3, forcing White to resolve
ten more or less forced to attack by various methods, such the central tension. White normally clarifies the central
as driving the black knight off f5 with g4 or playing h4– situation for the moment with 4. e5, gaining space and
h5 to expel the knight from g6. Because of the blocked hoping to show that Black’s b4-bishop is misplaced. The
centre, sacrificial mating attacks are often possible. It main line then is: 4... c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3, resulting
is said by French players that the classic bishop sacrifice in the diagrammed position:
(Bd3xh7) should be evaluated every move. Black, how- After 3...Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3
ever, often welcomes an attack as the French is notorious
for producing defensive tactics and maneuvers that leave
While White has doubled pawns on the queenside, which
Black up material for an endgame. Viktor Korchnoi who,
form the basis for Black’s counterplay, they can also help
along with Botvinnik, was the strongest player who advo-
White since they strengthen his centre and give him a
cated the French, talked about how he would psycholog-
semi-open b-file. White has a spatial advantage on the
ically lure his opponents into attacking him so that they
kingside, where Black is even weaker than usual because
would eventually sacrifice material and he would halt his
he has traded off his dark-square bishop. Combined with
opponent’s army and win the endgame easily.
the bishop pair, this gives White attacking chances, which
he must attempt to utilise as the long-term features of this
pawn structure favour Black.
9.4.3 Main line: 2.d4 d5
In the diagrammed position, Black most frequently plays
3.Nc3 6... Ne7 (The main alternative is 6...Qc7, which can sim-
ply transpose to main lines after 7.Qg4 Ne7, but Black
Played in over 40% of all games after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 also has the option of 7.Qg4 f5 or ...f6. 6...Qa5 has re-
d5, 3. Nc3 is the most commonly seen line against the cently become a popular alternative). Now White can ex-
French. Black has three main options, 3...dxe4 (the Ru- ploit the absence of Black’s dark-square bishop by play-
binstein Variation), 3...Bb4 (the Winawer Variation) ing 7. Qg4, giving Black two choices: he may sacri-
and 3...Nf6 (the Classical Variation). An eccentric idea fice his kingside pawns with 7...Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7
is 3...Nc6!? 4.Nf3 Nf6 with the idea of 5.e5 Ne4; Ger- cxd4 but destroy White’s centre in return, the so-called
man IM Helmut Reefschlaeger has been fond of this "Poisoned Pawn Variation"; or he can play 7...0-0 8.Bd3
move. Nbc6, which avoids giving up material, but leaves the
king on the flank where White is trying to attack. Ex-
perts on the 7.Qg4 line include Judit Polgár.
Rubinstein Variation: 3...dxe4 After 3.Nc3 dxe4 If the tactical complications of 7.Qg4 are not to White’s
4.Nxe4 taste, 7.Nf3 and 7.a4 are good positional alternatives:
7. Nf3 is a natural developing move, and White usually
This variation is named after Akiba Rubinstein and can follows it up by developing the king’s bishop to d3 or e2
also arise from a different move order: 3.Nd2 dxe4. (occasionally to b5) and castling kingside. This is called
White has freer development and more space in the cen- the Winawer Advance Variation. This line often contin-
tre, which Black intends to neutralise by playing ...c7–c5 ues 7... Bd7 8. Bd3 c4 9. Be2 Ba4 10. 0-0 Qa5 11.
9.4. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT
Bd2 Nbc6 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nh3 0-0-0. Its assessment is Classical Variation:
unclear, but most likely Black would be considered “com- 3...Nf6
fortable” here.
The purpose behind 7. a4 is threefold: it prepares Bc1–
a3, taking advantage of the absence of Black’s dark-
square bishop. It also prevents Black from playing
...Qa5–a4 or ...Bd7–a4 attacking c2, and if Black plays
...b6 (followed by ...Ba6 to trade off the bad bishop),
White may play a5 to attack the b6-pawn.
Sidelines 5th move deviations for White include:
• 5.Qg4
• 5.dxc5
• 5.Nf3
• 5.Bd2
4th move deviations for White include:
• 4.exd5 exd5, transposing to a line of the Exchange
Variation.
• 4.Ne2 (the Alekhine Gambit) 4...dxe4 5.a3 Be7
(5...Bxc3+ is necessary if Black wants to try to hold
the pawn) 6.Nxe4 to prevent Black from doubling
his pawns.
• 4.Bd3 defending e4.
• 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4, another attempt to
exploit Black’s weakness on g7.
• 4.e5 c5 5.Bd2, again preventing the doubled pawns
and making possible 6.Nb5, where the knight may
hop into d6 or simply defend d4.
• 4.Bd2 (an old move sometimes played by Nezh-
metdinov, notably against Mikhail Tal)
Deviations for Black include:
• 4...Ne7 although this move usually transposes to the
main line.
• 4...b6 followed by ...Ba6, or 4...Qd7 with the idea
of meeting 5.Qg4 with 5...f5. However, theory cur-
rently prefers White’s chances in both lines.
• Another popular way for Black to deviate is 4.e5
c5 5.a3 Ba5, the Armenian Variation, as its the-
ory and practice have been much enriched by play-
ers from that country, the most notable of whom is
Rafael Vaganian. Black maintains the pin on the
knight, which White usually tries to break by play-
ing 6.b4 cxb4 7.Qg4 or 7.Nb5 (usually 7.Nb5 bxa3+
8.c3 Bc7 9.Bxa3 and white has the upper hand).
225
3...Nf6 Classical Variation
This is another major system in the French. White can
continue with the following options:
4.Bg5 White threatens 5.e5, attacking the pinned
knight. Black has a number of ways to meet this threat:
• Burn Variation, named after Amos Burn is the
most common reply at the top level: 4... dxe4 5.
Nxe4 and usually there now follows: 5... Be7 6.
Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Nf3 Nd7 or 7... 0-0, resulting in
a position resembling those arising from the Ru-
binstein Variation. However, here Black has the
bishop pair, with greater dynamic chances (although
White’s knight is well placed on e4), so this line is
more popular than the Rubinstein and has long been
a favourite of Evgeny Bareev. Black can also try 5...
Be7 6. Bxf6 gxf6, as played by Alexander Moroze-
vich and Gregory Kaidanov; by following up with
...f5 and ...Bf6, Black obtains active piece play in
return for his shattered pawn structure. Another line
that resembles the Rubinstein is 5... Nbd7 6. Nf3
Be7 (6...h6 is also tried) 7. Nxf6+ Bxf6.
• 4... Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 used to be the main line and
remains important, even though the Burn Variation
has overtaken it in popularity. The usual continua-
tion is 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4 0-0 8. Nf3 c5, when
White has a number of options, including 9.Bd3,
9.Qd2 and 9.dxc5. An alternative for White is the
gambit 6. h4, which was devised by Adolf Albin
and played by Chatard, but not taken seriously un-
til the game Alekhine–Fahrni, Mannheim 1914. It
is known today as the Albin–Chatard Attack or
the Alekhine–Chatard Attack. After 6... Bxg5 7.
hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9. Nf4 Nc6 10. Qg4 (the
reason for 8.Nh3 rather than 8.Nf3), White has sac-
rificed a pawn to open the h-file, thereby increasing
his attacking chances on the kingside. Black may
also decline the gambit in several ways such 6... a6
and 6... f6, but most strong players prefer 6... c5.
• A third choice for Black is to counterattack with
the McCutcheon Variation. In this variation, the
second player ignores White’s threat of e4-e5 and
instead plays 4... Bb4. The main line continues:
5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4.
At this point Black may play 8...g6, which weak-
ens the kingside dark squares but keeps the option
of castling queenside, or 8...Kf8. The McCutcheon
Variation is named for John Lindsay McCutcheon
of Philadelphia (1857–1905), who brought the vari-
ation to public attention when he used it to defeat
World Champion Steinitz in a simultaneous exhibi-
tion in Manhattan in 1885.[1][2][3]
226 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

4.e5 The Steinitz Variation (named after Wilhelm time for development by harassing Black’s
Steinitz) is 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 (the most common but queen. This interplay of static and dynamic
White has other options: 5.Nce2, the Shirov–Anand advantages is the reason why this line has be-
Variation), White gets ready to bolster his centre with come popular in the last decade. Play usu-
c2–c3 and f2–f4. Or 5.Nf3 (aiming for piece play) 5... ally continues 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7.
c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 (7.Nce2 transposes to the Shirov– 0-0 Nf6 (preventing 8.Ne4) 8. Nb3 Nc6 9.
Anand Variation; a trap is 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Ndxe5! Nbxd4 Nxd4, and here White may stay in the
9.fxe5 Qh4+ winning a pawn), Black has several options. middlegame with 10.Nxd4 or offer the trade
He may step up pressure on d4 by playing 7...Qb6 or of queens with 10.Qxd4, with the former far
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6, or choose to complete his devel- more commonly played today.
opment, either beginning with the kingside by playing
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5, or with the queenside by playing • 3... Nf6 While the objective of 3...c5 was to break
7...a6 8.Qd2 b5. open the centre, 3... Nf6 aims to close it. After 4.
e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 (6...b6 intends ...Ba6
next to get rid of Black’s “bad” light-square bishop,
Tarrasch Variation: 3.Nd2 a recurring idea in the French) 7. Ne2 (leaving f3
open for the queen’s knight) 7... cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9.
After 3.Nd2 Nf6 exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 Black has freed his pieces
at the cost of having a backward pawn on e6. White
The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tar- may also choose to preserve his pawn on e5 by play-
rasch. This move became particularly popular during the ing 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. f4 Nc6 7. Ndf3, but
1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to his development is slowed as a result, and Black will
great effect. Though less aggressive than the alternate gain dynamic chances if he can open the position to
3.Nc3, it is still used by top-level players seeking a small, advantage.
safe advantage. • 3... Nc6 is known as the Guimard Variation: after
Like 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 protects e4, but is different in several 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nd7 Black will exchange White’s
key respects: it does not block White’s c-pawn from ad- cramping e-pawn next move by ...f6. However,
vancing, which means he can play c3 at some point to sup- Black does not exert any pressure on d4 because he
port his d4-pawn. Hence, it avoids the Winawer Variation cannot play ...c5, so White should maintain a slight
as 3...Bb4 is now readily answered by 4.c3. On the other advantage, with 6.Be2 or 6 Nb3.
hand, 3.Nd2 develops the knight to an arguably less ac-
• 3... Be7 is known as the Morozevich Varia-
tive square than 3.Nc3, and in addition, it hems in White’s
tion.[4] A fashionable line among top GMs in re-
dark-square bishop. Hence, white will typically have to
cent years, this odd-looking move aims to prove that
spend an extra tempo moving the knight from d2 at some
every White move now has its drawbacks, e.g. af-
point before developing said bishop.
ter 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 White cannot play f4,
whereas 4.Bd3 c5 5.dxc5 Nf6 and 4.e5 c5 5. Qg4
• 3... c5 4. exd5 and now Black has two ways to re- Kf8!? lead to obscure complications. 3...h6?!,
capture: with a similar rationale, has also gained some ad-
• 4... exd5 this was a staple of many old venturous followers in recent years, including GM
Karpov–Korchnoi battles, including seven Alexander Morozevich.
games in their 1974 match, usually leads to • Another rare line is 3... a6, which gained some pop-
Black having an isolated queen’s pawn (see ularity in the 1970s. Similar to 3...Be7, the idea is
isolated pawn). The main line continues 5. to play a waiting move to make White declare his in-
Ngf3 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. 0-0 Nge7 8. dxc5 tentions before Black commits to a plan of his own.
Bxc5 9. Nb3 Bb6 with a position where, if 3...a6 also controls the b5-square, which is typically
White can neutralise the activity of Black’s useful for Black in most French lines because, for
pieces in the middlegame, he will have a slight example, White no longer has the option of playing
advantage in the ending. Another possibility Bb5.
for White is 5.Bb5+ Bd7 (5...Nc6 is also pos-
sible) 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 to trade off the bish-
ops and make it more difficult for Black to re- Exchange Variation: 3.exd5 exd5
gain the pawn.
• 4... Qxd5 is an important alternative for After 3.exd5 exd5
Black; the idea is to trade his c- and d-pawns
for White’s d- and e-pawns, leaving Black with Many players who begin with 1.e4 find that the French
an extra centre pawn. This constitutes a slight Defence is the most difficult opening for them to play
structural advantage, but in return White gains against due to the closed structure and unique strategies
9.4. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT
of the system. Thus, many players choose to play the ex-
change so that the position becomes simple and clearcut.
White makes no effort to exploit the advantage of the
first move, and has often chosen this line with expec-
tation of an early draw, and indeed draws often occur
if neither side breaks the symmetry. An extreme ex-
ample was Capablanca–Maróczy, Lake Hopatcong 1926,
which went: 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 Bg4
8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c6 10.c3 Qc7 11.Qc2 Rfe8 12.Bh4
Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Rxe8+ Rxe8 16.Bxg6
hxg6 17.Re1 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Ne8 19.Nd3 Nd6 20.Qb3
a6 21.Kf1 ½–½ (the game can be viewed here).
Despite the symmetrical pawn structure, White cannot
force a draw. An obsession with obtaining one some-
times results in embarrassment for White, as in Tatai–
Korchnoi, Beer Sheva 1978, which continued 4.Bd3
c5!? 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0
Bxc5 10.c3 Re8 11.Qc2 Qd6 12.Nbd2 Qg3 13.Bf5 Re2
14.Nd4 Nxd4 0–1 (the game can be watched here). A less
extreme example was Mikhail Gurevich–Short, Manila
1990 where White, a strong Russian grandmaster, played
openly for the draw but was ground down by Short in 42
moves.
To create genuine winning chances, White will often play
c2–c4 at some stage to put pressure on Black’s d5-pawn.
Black can give White an isolated queen’s pawn by cap-
turing on c4, but this gives White’s pieces greater free-
dom, which may lead to attacking chances. This occurs in
lines such as 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 (played by GMs Normunds
Miezis and Maurice Ashley) and 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4, which
may transpose to the Petroff. Conversely, if White de-
clines to do this, Black may play ...c7–c5 himself, e.g.
4.Bd3 c5, as in the above-cited Tatai–Korchnoi game.
If c2–c4 is not played, White and Black have two main
piece setups. White may put his pieces on Nf3, Bd3,
Bg5 (pinning the black knight), Nc3, Qd2 or the queen’s
knight can go to d2 instead and White can support the
centre with c3 and perhaps play Qb3. Conversely, when
the queen’s knight is on c3, the king’s knight may go to
e2 when the enemy bishop and knight can be kept out of
the key squares e4 and g4 by f3. When the knight is on
c3 in the first and last of the above strategies, White may
choose either short or long castling. The positions are so
symmetrical that the options and strategies are the same
for both sides.
Another way to unbalance the position is for White or
Black to castle on opposite sides of the board. An ex-
ample of this is the line 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4
7.0-0 Nge7 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nbd2 0-0-0.
Advance Variation: 3.e5
After 3.e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3
The main line of the Advance Variation continues 3... c5 ers over the years, including GMs Pal Benko, Bobby Fis-
227
4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 and then we have a branching point:
5... Qb6, the idea is to increase the pressure on d4
and eventually undermine the White centre. The queen
also attacks the b2-square, so White’s dark-square bishop
cannot easily defend the d4-pawn without losing the b2-
pawn. White’s most common replies are 6.a3 and 6.Be2.
6.a3 is currently the most important line in the Advance:
it prepares 7.b4, gaining space on the queenside. Black
may prevent this with 6...c4 intending to take en passant if
White plays b4, which creates a closed game where Black
fights for control of the b3-square. On the other hand,
Black may continue developing with 6...Nh6, intending
...Nf5, which might seem strange as White can double
the pawn with Bxh6, but this is actually considered good
for Black. Black plays ...Bg7 and ...0-0 and Black’s king
has adequate defence and White will miss his apparently
'bad' dark-square bishop.
6.Be2 is the other alternative, aiming simply to castle.
Once again, a common Black response is 6...Nh6 intend-
ing 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 attacking d4. White usually re-
sponds to this threat with 7.Bxh6 or 7.b3 preparing Bb2.
5... Bd7 was mentioned by Greco as early as 1620, and
was revived and popularised by Viktor Korchnoi in the
1970s. Now a main line, the idea behind the move is that
since Black usually plays ...Bd7 sooner or later, he plays
it right away and waits for White to show his hand. If
White plays 6.a3 in response, modern theory says that
Black equalises or is better after 6...f6! The lines are
complex, but the main point is that a3 is a wasted move if
the black queen is not on b6 and so Black uses the extra
tempo to attack the white centre immediately.
5...Nh6 has recently become a popular alternative
There are alternative strategies to 3... c5 that were tried
in the early 20th century such as 3...b6, intending to
fianchetto the bad bishop and which can transpose to
Owen’s Defence or 3...Nc6, played by Carlos Guimard,
intending to keep the bad bishop on c8 or d7 which is pas-
sive and obtains little counterplay. Also, 4...Qb6 5.Nf3
Bd7 intending 6...Bb5 to trade off the “bad” queen’s
bishop is possible.
9.4.4 Early deviations for White
After 1.e4 e6, almost 90 percent of all games continue
2.d4 d5, but White can try other ideas. The most im-
portant of these is 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2, with a version of the
King’s Indian Attack. White will likely play Ngf3, g3,
Bg2, 0-0, c3 and/or Re1 in some order on the next few
moves. Black has several ways to combat this setup:
3...c5 followed by ...Nc6, ...Bd6, ...Nf6 or ...Nge7 and
...0-0 is common, 3...Nf6 4.Ngf3 Nc6 plans ...dxe4 and
...e5 to block in the Bg2, and 3...Nf6 4.Ngf3 b6 makes
...Ba6 possible if White’s light-square bishop leaves the
a6–f1 diagonal. 2.d3 has been used by many leading play-
228 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

cher and Lev Psakhis. 1834 (although earlier examples of games with the open-
ing do exist). It was Chamouillet, one of the players of
• 2.f4 is the Labourdonnais Variation, named after the Paris[7]team, who persuaded the others to adopt this
Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, the 19th- defence.
century French master.[5] As a reply to 1.e4, the French Defence received relatively
little attention in the nineteenth century compared to
• 2.Qe2 is the Chigorin Variation, which discour- 1...e5. The first world chess champion Wilhelm Steinitz
ages 2...d5 because after 3.exd5 the black pawn is said “I have never in my life played the French Defence,
pinned, meaning Black would need to recapture with which is the dullest of all openings”.[8] In the early 20th
the queen. Black usually replies 2...c5, after which century, Géza Maróczy was perhaps the first world-class
play can resemble the 2.d3 variation or the Closed player to make it his primary weapon against 1.e4. For
Variation of the Sicilian Defence. a long time, it was the third most popular reply to 1.e4,
behind only 1...c5 and 1...e5. However, according to the
• 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 is the Two Knights Variation:
Mega Database 2007, in 2006, 1...e6 was second only to
3...d4 and 3...Nf6 are good replies for Black.
the Sicilian in popularity.
• 2.c4 (attempting to discourage 2...d5 by Black) is Historically important contributors to the theory of
the Steiner Variation. But Black can reply 2...d5 the defence include Mikhail Botvinnik, Viktor Korch-
anyway, when after 3.cxd5 exd5 4.exd5 Nf6 the only noi, Aron Nimzowitsch, Tigran Petrosian, Lev Psakhis,
way for White to hold on to his extra pawn on d5 is Wolfgang Uhlmann and Rafael Vaganian. More re-
to play 5.Bb5+. Black gets good compensation in cently, its leading practitioners include Evgeny Bareev,
return for the pawn, however. Alexey Dreev, Mikhail Gurevich, Alexander Khalifman,
Smbat Lputian, Alexander Morozevich, Teimour Rad-
• 2.Bb5 has occasionally been tried. Notably, Henry jabov, Nigel Short, Gata Kamsky, and Yury Shulman.
Bird defeated Max Fleissig with the variation during
the Vienna 1873 chess tournament.[6] The Exchange Variation was recommended by Howard
Staunton in the 19th century,[9] but has been in decline
• 2.b3 leads to the Réti Gambit after 2...d5 3.Bb2 ever since. In the early 1990s Garry Kasparov briefly ex-
dxe4, but Black can also decline it with 3...Nf6 4.e5 perimented with it before switching to 3.Nc3. Note that
Nd7 with White going for f4 and Qg4 before putting Black’s game is made much easier as his queen’s bishop
the knight on f3. has been liberated. It has the reputation of giving im-
mediate equality to Black, due to the symmetrical pawn
There are also a few rare continuations after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 structure.
d5, including 3.Bd3 (the Schlechter Variation), 3.Be3 Like the Exchange, the Advance Variation was fre-
(the Alapin Gambit), and 3.c4 (the Diemer-Duhm Gam- quently played in the early days of the French Defence.
bit, which can also be reached via the Queen’s Gambit Aron Nimzowitsch believed it to be White’s best choice
Declined). and enriched its theory with many ideas. However, the
Advance declined in popularity throughout most of the
20th century until it was revived in the 1980s by GM
9.4.5 Early deviations for Black and prominent opening theoretician Evgeny Sveshnikov,
who continues to be a leading expert in this line. In re-
Although 2...d5 is the most consistent move after 1.e4 e6 cent years, it has become nearly as popular as 3.Nd2; GM
2.d4, Black occasionally plays other moves. Chief among Alexander Grischuk has championed it successfully at the
them is 2...c5, the Franco-Benoni Defence, so-called highest levels. It is also a popular choice at the club level
because it features the c7–c5 push characteristic of the due to the availability of a simple, straightforward plan
Benoni Defence. White may continue 3.d5, when play involving attacking chances and extra space.
can transpose into the Benoni, though White has extra
options since c2–c4 is not mandated. 3.Nf3, transposing
into a normal Sicilian Defence, and 3.c3, transposing into 9.4.7 ECO codes
a line of the Alapin Sicilian (usually arrived at after 1.e4
c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4) are also common. Play may also lead The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings includes an al-
back to the French; for example, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.c3 d5 phanumeric classification system for openings that is
4.e5 transposes into the Advance Variation. widely used in chess literature. Codes C00 to C19 are
the French Defence, broken up in the following way (all
apart from C00 start with the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5):
9.4.6 History

The French Defence is named after a match played by • C00 – 1.e4 e6 without 2.d4, or 2.d4 without 2...d5
correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in (early deviations)
9.4. DIEMER-DUHM GAMBIT
• C01 – 2.d4 d5 (includes the Exchange Variation,
3.exd5)
• C02 – 3.e5 (Advance Variation)
• C03 – 3.Nd2 (includes 3...Be7; C03–C09 cover the
Tarrasch Variation)
• C04 – 3.Nd2 Nc6 (Guimard Variation)
• C05 – 3.Nd2 Nf6
• C06 – 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3
• C07 – 3.Nd2 c5 (includes 4.exd5 Qxd5)
• C08 – 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5
• C09 – 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 Nc6
• C10 – 3.Nc3 (includes the Rubinstein Variation,
3...dxe4)
• C11 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 (includes the Steinitz Variation,
4.e5; C11–C14 cover the Classical Variation)
• C12 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (includes the McCutcheon
Variation, 4...Bb4)
• C13 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 (Burn Variation)
• C14 – 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7
• C15 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 (C15–C19 cover the Winawer
Variation) 9.4.10
• C16 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5
• C17 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5
• C18 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 (includes the Arme-
nian Variation, 5...Ba5)
• C19 – 3.Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7
7.Nf3 and 7.a4
9.4.8 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
9.4.9 References
[1] T.D. Harding, French: MacCutcheon [sic] and Advance
Lines, Batsford, 1979, pp. 12, 56. ISBN 0-7134-2026-X.
[2] Although many sources refer to John Lindsay Mc-
Cutcheon and his eponymous variation as “Mac-
Cutcheon”, “McCutcheon” is the correct spelling. Jeremy
Gaige, Chess Personalia, McFarland & Company, 1987,
pp. 260, 275. ISBN 0-7864-2353-6; David Hooper and
Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd
ed. 1992), Oxford University Press, p. 240, p. 478 n.
1205. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
229
[3] Steinitz–McCutcheon, New York simul 1885
[4] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/688
[5] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=4&n=209&
ms=e4.e6.f4&ns=3.16.209
[6] http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/2183872/
rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/4p3/1B6/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/
RNBQK1NR%20b%20KQkq%20-%201%202
[7] Le Palamède edited by St. Amant (1846), p. 20.
[8] “The Cable Match Between Messrs.Tschigorin and
Steinitz”. The International Chess Magazine. 7.1. January
1891. p. 27. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
[9] p369, Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook,
1847, H.G.Bohn.
Bibliography
• Watson, John (2003). Play the French (3rd ed.). Ev-
eryman Chess.
• Eingorn, Viacheslav (2008). Chess Explained: The
French. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-95-
6.
Further reading
• Keene, Raymond (1984). French Defence: Tarrasch
Variation. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-4577-7.
• Psakhis, Lev (2003). Advance and Other
Anti-French Variations. Batsford. ISBN
9780713488432.
• Psakhis, Lev (2003). French Defence 3 Nd2. Ster-
ling Pub. ISBN 9780713488258.
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2008). The Flexible French.
New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-245-1.
• Tzermiadianos, Andreas (2008). How to Beat the
French Defence: The Essential Guide to the Tar-
rasch. Everyman Chess. ISBN 9781857445671.
• Vitiugov, Nikita (2010). The French Defence.
Chess Stars. ISBN 978-954-8782-76-0.
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2010). The Wonderful
Winawer. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-327-
4.
9.4.11 External links
• The Anatomy of the French Advance
230
9.5 London System
The London System is a chess opening that usually arises
after 1.d4 and 2.Bf4 or 2.Nf3 & 3.Bf4. It is a “system”
opening that can be used against virtually any black de-
fense and thus comprises a smaller body of opening the-
ory than many other openings. The London System is one
of the "Queen’s Pawn Game", where White opens with
1.d4 but doesn't play the Queen’s Gambit. It normally
results in a closed game.
Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovačević, in the introduction
to their 2005 book Win with the London System, state:
Basically the London is a set of solid lines
where after 1.d4 White quickly develops his
dark-squared bishop to f4 and normally bol-
sters his centre with [pawns on] c3 and e3
rather than expanding. Although it has the po-
tential for a quick kingside attack, the white
forces are generally flexible enough to engage
in a battle anywhere on the board. Historically
it developed into a system mainly from three
variations:
• 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4.
The corresponding Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings codes are D02, A46, and A48.
If White is going to play the London Sys-
tem, it is now thought to be more accurate to
play 2.Bf4 instead of 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4.[1]
9.5.1 Description
The line came into fashion in the 1922 London tourna-
ment as a way of meeting hypermodern setups. The line
gives White a solid position, and critics of the line refer to
it as the “old man’s variation” or the “boring system”.[2]
Even so, the opening can lead to sharp attacks and Vlatko
Kovačević and David Bronstein are among the sharp tac-
tical players who have played the London System.[3]
9.5.2 Early play
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4
This position can also be reached via 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5
3.Bf4. Black usually plays either 3...c5, 3...e6, 3...Bf5,
3...c6, 3...g6, or 3...Nc6.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4
Black usually plays either 3...b6, 3...c5, or 3...d5, trans- The Richter–Veresov Attack (or Veresov Opening) is
posing above.
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4
Play often goes 3...Bg7 4.e3 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0. As is
usual in the King’s Indian, Black can strike in the center
with ...c5 or ...e5. After 6...c5 7.c3, Black often plays
either 7...b6, 7...Qb6, 7...Nc6, 7...Be6, or 7...cxd4. Black
can prepare ...e5 in a number of ways, usually starting
with either 6...Nbd7, 6...Nc6, or 6...Nfd7.
9.5.3 Example game
Kotov vs. Petrosian, Gagra 1952
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.e3 0-0
5.Nbd2 c5 6.c3 cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 8.h3 d6
9.Nc4 b5 10.Ne3 b4 11.d5 bxc3 12.dxc6 cxb2
13.Rb1 Ne4 14.Bd3 Qa5+ 15.Kf1 Ba6 16.Nc4
Bxc4 17.Bxc4 Nc3 18.Qd2 Qa4 19.Bd3
Nxb1 20.Bxb1 Rfc8 21.g3 Rxc6 22.Kg2
Rac8 23.Bh6 Rc1 24.Bxg7 Rxh1 25.Kxh1
Rc1+ 26.Kg2 Rxb1 27.Qh6 Qd1 28.g4 Qh1+
29.Kg3 Rg1+ 0–1[4]
9.5.4 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
9.5.5 References
[1] Sverre Johnsen; Vlatko Kovacevic (2005). Win with the
London System. Gambit. ISBN 1-904600-35-2.
[2] Donaldson, John. “London System (review of Win With
the London System)". jeremysilman.com. Retrieved
2009-03-21.
[3] Marsh, Sean. “Colle, Torre, and London System”. Chess-
base. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
[4] Alexander Kotov vs Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian (1952)
“Kotov Guard”
9.5.6 Further reading
• Lakdawala, Cyrus (2010). Play the London System.
Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85-7446-39-5.
9.6 Richter-Veresov Attack
a chess opening that begins with the moves:
9.6. RICHTER-VERESOV ATTACK 231

1. d4 d5 Bronstein all experimented with the Veresov Opening as

2. Nc3 Nf6 an occasional surprise weapon. Even Karpov employed it
with success against Romanishin in a Soviet Team Cham-
3. Bg5 pionship. Other, more frequent practitioners have in-
cluded Hector Rossetto, Lev Alburt, Victor Ciocaltea,
It is also often reached by transposition, for example 1.d4 Nikola Padevsky, and Tony Miles.
Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 (the most common move order), In more contemporary play, the system has remained
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.Nc3, or 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.d4 d5 3.Bg5. popular. Grandmaster Jonny Hector has become an ad-
The opening was named after the German International herent of the Veresov and some interest has also been
Master Kurt Richter and later the Soviet master Gavriil shown by leading GM Alexander Morozevich.
Veresov, who played it frequently for over a quarter of aAfter 3.Bg5 (see diagram), Black’s most popular choices
century. are 3...Nbd7, 3...e6, 3...Bf5, 3...c6, and 3...c5, all poten-
Along with the Trompowsky Attack, Colle System, tially leading to different variations. White’s plans typi-
London System, and Torre Attack, the Richter–Veresov cally include rapid queenside castling and an early f3 and
Attack is one of the more common branches of the e4.
Queen’s Pawn Game. The more popular Ruy Lopez After the black reply 3...Bf5, Richter usually continued
opening looks like a Richter–Veresov Attack mirrored on 4.f3, hoping to build a large pawn centre; Veresov, on the
the queenside, but the dynamics of play are quite differ- other hand, usually played 4.Bxf6, damaging the black
ent. pawn structure. Today, these two lines are known, re-
The ECO code for the Richter–Veresov Attack is D01. spectively, as the Richter and Veresov Variations.

9.6.1 Incremental development 9.6.3 See also

The opening dates back as far as the game Marshall– • List of chess openings
Wolf, Monte Carlo 1902. However, it was Savielly Tar- • List of chess openings named after people
takower who played it regularly in the 1920s and even
to the end of his life, and featuring it in his victory over
Donner at Staunton Centenary 1951. Tartakower’s inter- 9.6.4 Notes
pretation and treatment of the opening generally led to a
closed, manoeuvring game. [1] “David Bronstein vs Gavriil Veresov (1959)". Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
Kurt Richter was the next player to develop new ideas in
the opening, during the 1930s. He mostly found it useful
to facilitate his risk-taking style, and he produced some 9.6.5 References
dazzling victories which contributed to a whole chapter
of his book of best games. Some theoreticians refer to • Chessgames.com: Richter–Veresov Attack (D01)
the opening as the Richter Attack.
• CHESS magazine, Jimmy Adams, Volume 44 Nos.
It was Gavriil Veresov, however, who greatly strength-
805–6, November 1978, pp. 57–62.
ened both the theory and practice of the opening from
World War II to his heyday in the 1950s and 1960s. He
is credited with demonstrating that the opening contained 9.6.6 Further reading
more subtlety and depth than was previously considered,
often culminating in a central advance or direct assault on • Gufeld, Eduard; Stetsko, Oleg (2000). Richter–
the enemy king. As a tool for rapid piece development, Veresov System: The Chameleon Chess Repertoire.
it resembled a king pawn opening, and requiring fewer Thinkers Pr Inc / Chessco. ISBN 9780938650973.
pawn moves than standard queen pawn fare.
• Davies, Nigel (2003). The Veresov. Everyman
The opening has never been very popular at the top level,
Chess. ISBN 9781857443356.
though various prominent players have employed it on oc-
casion. In 1959, for example, David Bronstein played the • Cyrus Lakdawala (2010). A Ferocious Open-
Richter Attack against Veresov himself.[1] ing Repertoire. Everyman Chess. ISBN
9781857446616.

9.6.2 The Veresov today

9.6.7 External links
Moving into the last third of the 20th century, grandmas-
ters of the calibre of Spassky, Tal, Smyslov, Larsen, and • Richter–Veresov Attack
232 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

9.7 Benoni Defense 9.7.4 Modern Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5

3.d5 e6
The Benoni Defense is a chess opening characterized by
the moves: Main article: Modern Benoni
Modern Benoni

1. d4 Nf6 The Modern Benoni, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6, is the
2. c4 c5 most common form of Benoni apart from the Benko
Gambit. Black’s intention is to play ...exd5 and create
3. d5 a queenside pawn majority, whose advance will be sup-
ported by fianchettoed bishop on g7. The combination of
these two features differentiates Black’s setup from the
Black can then sacrifice a pawn by 3...b5 (the Benko other Benoni defenses and the King’s Indian Defense, al-
Gambit), but if Black does not elect this line then 3...e6 is though transpositions between these openings are com-
the most common move (though 3...d6 or 3...g6 are also mon. The Modern Benoni is classified under the ECO
seen, typically leading to main lines). codes A60–A79.

Snake Benoni: 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 Bd6

9.7.1 Etymology
Snake Benoni
“Ben oni” (‫ )ֶּבן אֹוִני‬is a Hebrew term meaning “son of my
sorrow” (cf. Genesis 35:18) – the name of an 1825 book
by Aaron Reinganum about several defenses against the The Snake Benoni refers to a variant of the Mod-
King’s Gambit and the Queen’s Gambit.[1] ern Benoni where the bishop is developed to d6 rather
than g7. This opening was invented in 1982 by Rolf
Olav Martens, who gave it its name because of the sin-
uous movement of the bishop—in Martens’s original
9.7.2 Old Benoni: 1.d4 c5 concept, Black follows up with 6...Bc7 and sometimes
...Ba5—and because the Swedish word for “snake”, orm,
Old Benoni Defense was an anagram of his initials.[4] Normunds Miezis has
been a regular exponent of this variation.[5] Aside from
Martens’s plan, 6...0-0 intending ...Re8, ...Bf8 and a po-
The Old Benoni starts with 1.d4 c5. The Old Benoni may
tential redevelopment of the bishop to g7, has also been
transpose to the Czech Benoni, but there are a few inde-
tried.[5] White appears to retain the advantage against
pendent variations. This form has never attracted serious
both setups.[6]
interest in high-level play, though Alexander Alekhine
defeated Efim Bogoljubow with it in one game of their
second match, in 1934. The Old Benoni is some- 9.7.5 ECO
times called the Blackburne Defense, after Englishman
Joseph Henry Blackburne, the first player known to have The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has many
used it successfully.[2] codes for the Benoni Defense.
Old Benoni Defense:

9.7.3 Czech Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5

• A43 1.d4 c5
e5
• A44 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5
Czech Benoni
Benoni Defense:
In the Czech Benoni, also sometimes known as the Hro-
madka Benoni, after Karel Hromádka, Black plays 1.d4 • A56 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 (includes Czech
Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5. The Czech Benoni is much more Benoni)
solid than the Modern Benoni, but it is also more passive. • A57–A59 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5
The middlegames arising from this line are characterised (Benko Gambit)
by much manoeuvring; in most lines, Black will look to
break with b7–b5 or f7–f5 after due preparation, while • A60 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6
White may play Nc3–e4–h3–Bd3–Nf3–g4, in order to • A61 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
gain space on the kingside and prevent ...f5 by Black.[3] exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6
9.7. BENONI DEFENSE
Fianchetto Variation:
• A62 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2
0-0
• A63 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2
0-0 9.0-0 Nbd7
• A64 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2
0-0 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Nd2 a6 11.a4 Re8
Modern Benoni:
• A65 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4
• A66 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4
Taimanov Variation:
• A67 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+
Four Pawns Attack:
• A68 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3
0-0
• A69 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3
0-0 9.Be2 Re8
Classical Benoni:
• A70 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3
• A71 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Bg5
• A72 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0
• A73 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0
• A74 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 a6
• A75 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 Bg4
• A76 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 Re8
233
• A77 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Nd2
• A78 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Nd2 Na6
• A79 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3
exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Nd2 Na6 11.f3
9.7.6 See also
• Franco-Benoni Defence (1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5)
9.7.7 Notes
[1] “Whenever I felt in a sorrowful mood and wanted to take
refuge from melancholy, I sat over a chessboard, for one
or two hours according to circumstances. Thus this book
came into being, and its name, Ben-Oni, 'Son of Sadness,'
should indicate its origin.” (Reinganum, Aaron; Höck, J.
D. A. [1825]: Ben-Oni oder die Vertheidigungen gegen
die Gambitzüge im Schache [Son of sorrow or Defenses
against Gambits in Chess]. Frankfurt am Main [Ger-
many]: Hermann.
[2] Preston Ware vs Joseph Henry Blackburne, 1882 at
Chessgames.com
[3] http://www.chesscafe.com/shop/1166_excerpt.pdf
[4] Hall 1999, p. 225.
[5] Bronznik 2011, p. 210.
[6] Bronznik 2011, p. 222.
9.7.8 References and further reading
• Bronznik, Valeri (2011). 1.d4 - Beat the Guerrillas!.
Alkmaar: New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-373-
1.
• Franco, Zenon (2007). Chess Explained: The Mod-
ern Benoni. Gambit. ISBN 978-1-904600-77-0.
• Hall, Jesper (August 1999). “Seek, and thou shalt
find!". In Giddins, Steve. New In Chess–The First 25
Years. Alkmaar: New In Chess (published 2009).
ISBN 978-90-5691-296-3.
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau-
dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian
Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270-
3.
• Norwood, David (1995). The Modern Benoni.
Cadogan. ISBN 91-976005-2-0.
• Psakhis, Lev (2003). The Complete Benoni. Sterling
Pub. ISBN 0-7134-7765-2.
234 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

• Watson, John (2001). The Gambit Guide to the Mod- 9.8.2 Theory
ern Benoni. Gambit. ISBN 1-901983-23-4.
The main line continues with the moves 4. cxb5 a6
5. bxa6 Bxa6 followed by Black fianchettoing the f8-
9.8 Benko Gambit bishop. (Black players leery of the double-fianchetto sys-
tem, where White plays g3 and b3, and fianchettos both
bishops, have preferred 5...g6 intending 6.b3 Bg7 7.Bb2
The Benko Gambit (or Volga Gambit) is a chess open-
Nxa6! The point is that it is awkward for White to meet
ing characterised by the move 3...b5 in the Benoni De-
the threat of ...Nb4, hitting d5 and a2, when Nc3 may of-
fense arising after:
ten be met by ...Nfxd5 because of the latent pin down the
long diagonal.) Black’s compensation for the pawn takes
1. d4 Nf6 several forms. First, White, who is already behind in de-
2. c4 c5 velopment, must solve the problem of developing the f1-
bishop. After 6. Nc3 d6, if White plays 7.e4, then Black
3. d5 b5
will play 7...Bxf1, and after recapturing with the king,
White will have to spend time castling artificially with
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has three g3 and Kg2, as in the line 7...Bxf1 8.Kxf1 g6 9.g3 Bg7
codes for the Benko Gambit:[1] 10.Kg2. If White avoids this by fianchettoing the bishop,
it will be in a rather passive position, being blocked by
• A57 3...b5 White’s own pawn on d5.

• A58 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Apart from this, Black also obtains fast development and
good control of the a1–h8 diagonal and can exert pres-
• A59 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6 6.Nc3 d6 7.e4 sure down the half-open a- and b-files. These are benefits
which can last well into the endgame and so, unusual for
a gambit, Black does not generally mind if queens are
9.8.1 Origin and predecessors exchanged; indeed, exchanging queens can often remove
the sting from a kingside attack by White.
The idea of sacrificing a pawn with ...b5 and ...a6 is quite
Although the main line of the Benko is considered accept-
old. Karel Opočenský applied the idea against, among
able for White, there are various alternatives which avoid
others, Gideon Ståhlberg at Poděbrady 1936, Paul Keres
some of the problems entailed in the main line. The sim-
at Pärnu 1937, and Erich Eliskases at Prague 1937. Later
plest is to just decline the gambit with 4.Nf3. Other pos-
the Mark Taimanov versus David Bronstein game at the
sible moves are 4.Nd2, 4.a4, and 4.Qc2. Another idea,
Candidates Tournament, Zürich 1953, drew attention.
popular at the grandmaster level as of 2004, is to accept
Most of these games began as a King’s Indian, with Black
the pawn but then immediately return it with 4.cxb5 a6
only later playing ...c5 and ...b5. Possibly the first to use
5.b6. Another popular alternative is 5.e3.
the now-standard move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5
was Thorvaldsson–Vaitonis, Munich Olympiad 1936.
In many countries, particularly in the Eastern Bloc, the 9.8.3 Use
opening is known as the Volga Gambit. This name
is derived from the Volga River after an article about The gambit’s most notable practitioner has been its
3...b5!? by B. Argunow written in Kuibyshev (Samara eponym, Pal Benko. Many of the world’s strongest play-
since 1991), Russia, that was published in the second ers have used it at one time or another, including for-
1946 issue of the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR. mer world champions Viswanathan Anand, Garry Kas-
parov, Veselin Topalov and Mikhail Tal, and Grandmas-
Beginning in the late 1960s, this opening idea was
ters Vassily Ivanchuk, Michael Adams, Alexei Shirov,
also promoted by Pal Benko, a Hungarian-American
Boris Gelfand, and Evgeny Bareev.
Grandmaster, who provided many new suggestions and
published his book The Benko Gambit in 1974. The name
Benko Gambit stuck and is particularly used in English- 9.8.4 See also
speaking countries.
In his 1974 book, Benko drew a distinction between the • List of chess openings
Benko Gambit and the Volga Gambit: “Volga Gambit”
• List of chess openings named after people
referred to the move 3...b5 (sometimes followed by an
early ...e6), while the “Benko Gambit” consisted of the
moves 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6, which is now considered the main 9.8.5 References
line.[2] Now the terms are synonyms and are used in-
terchangeably or joined together with a hyphen (Volga– [1] Chess Archaeology: Openings classified under ECO
Benko Gambit).[3] A57–A59
9.10. ENGLISH DEFENCE 235

[2] Benko, Pal (1974). The Benko Gambit. B. T. Batsford,
London. ISBN 0-7134-1058-2.
[3] Konikowski, Jerry (November 2002). “A weapon against
the Volga Gambit”. ChessBase Magazine. ChessBase
GmbH (98).
9.8.6 Further reading
• Benko, Pal (1974). The Benko Gambit. Batsford.
9.9.1 General considerations
Black sacrifices a wing pawn to establish an imposing
centre with pawns on c5, d5 and e6. The natural devel-
opment of the bishops to b7 and d6, combined with the
open f-file for a rook, tend to facilitate Black’s play on the
kingside. White, on the other hand, will typically look to
counter in the centre by playing e4 at some point, while
his additional queenside pawn also offers him some ini-
tiative on that side of the board.

• Gufeld, Eduard (1988). Benko Gambit. Batsford.

ISBN 978-0-7134-5592-2. 9.9.2 Origin

• Gufeld, Eduard (1988). Benko Gambit Accepted. Si- The opening is named after the Russian master Benjamin
mon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-02-043281-4. Blumenfeld, and was later played by World Chess Cham-
pion Alexander Alekhine.
• Fedorowicz, John (1990). The Complete Benko
Gambit. Summit. ISBN 978-0-945806-14-1. The opening position can also be reached via the Benko
Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Nf3 e6). Pos-
• Ravikumar, V (1992). Play the Benko Gambit. sible continuations are 5.dxe6 (Kan-Goldenov, 1946),
Cadogan. ISBN 978-1-85744-014-0. 5.Bg5 (Vaganian-K. Grigorian, 1971), 5.e4, or 5.a4
(Rubinstein-Spielmann, 1922),[2] with 5.Bg5 being most
• McDonald, Neil (2004). Benko Gambit Revealed. frequently seen when this gambit is employed.
Batsford. ISBN 978-0-7134-8868-5.

• Pinski, Jan (2005). The Benko Gambit. Quality 9.9.3 See also
Chess. ISBN 978-91-975243-8-4.
• List of chess openings
• Bellin, Robert & Ponzetto, Pietro (1990). Mastering
the Modern Benoni and the Benko Gambit. Batsford. • List of chess openings named after people
ISBN 978-0-7134-6288-3.
9.9.4 References
9.9 Blumenfeld Gambit [1] Opening Report: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5
(1914 games)

The Blumenfeld Gambit is a chess opening charac- [2] Kasparov, Gary; Raymond Keene (1982). Batsford Chess
terised by the moves 3...e6 4.Nf3 b5 in the Benoni De- Openings. B. T. Batsford, London. ISBN 0-7134-2114-2.
fence arising after:
9.9.5 Further reading
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5 • Przewoznik, Jan; Pein, Malcolm (1991). The Blu-
menfeld Gambit. Pergamon Chess. ISBN 0-08-
3. d5 e6 037132-9.
4. Nf3 b5

9.9.6 External links

or alternatively:
• Blumenfeld Gambit - Yearbook Surveys - New In
1. d4 Nf6 Chess
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 c5 9.10 English Defence
4. d5 b5
The English Defence is a chess opening characterised by
In fact, as many as 30 different move orders are the moves:
possible.[1] The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO)
sorts the Blumenfeld Gambit under code E10 (1.d4 Nf6 1. d4 e6
2.c4 e6 3.Nf3). 2. c4 b6
236 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

9.10.1 Description • List of chess openings named after places

White often gains a broad pawn centre with 3.e4, which

Black puts pressure on with moves like ...Bb7, ...Bb4, 9.10.4 Notes
and sometimes even ...Qh4 and/or ...f5. It was devel-
[1] Lawton, Geoff (2003). Tony Miles:It’{}s Only Me. Bats-
oped by the Leicester player P. N. Wallis, and was taken
ford. p. 281. ISBN 0-7134-8809-3.
up by several leading English players in the 1970s, such
as Tony Miles, Jon Speelman and Raymond Keene.[1] It [2] Lev Polugaevsky vs. Viktor Korchnoi, Évian 1977
flouts several traditional opening principles, as Black of-
ten develops bishops before knights and brings out the [3] Susan Polgar vs. Jonathan Speelman, Netherlands 1993
queen early.[1] It is a somewhat unusual opening, but has [4] http://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=3894764
been seen in high-level grandmaster play, usually as a sur-
prise weapon, for example when Viktor Korchnoi used it
to defeat Lev Polugaevsky in their world championship 9.10.5 References
semifinals match at Évian 1977 (see below).
• Plaskett, James. Foxy Openings Volume 22: English
Defence (DVD).
9.10.2 Illustrative games • Monokroussos, Dennis. “English Defence: be the
victor, not the victim!". Chessbase.com. Retrieved
• Polugaevsky–Korchnoi, Évian 1977:[2]
2006-11-17.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.e4 Bb7 4.Qc2 Qh4 5.Nd2 Bb4
6.Bd3 f5 7.Nf3 Bxd2+ 8.Kf1 Qh5 9.Bxd2 Nf6
10.exf5 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nc6 12.Bc3 0-0 13.Re1
Qh3+ 14.Ke2 Rae8 15.Kd1 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 9.11 Keres Defence
17.Be2 Nxf3 18.Qd3 Rxe2 19.Rxe2 Qg2 20.Rhe1
Nxe1 21.Kxe1 Qxh2 22.Re7 Qg1+ 23.Ke2 Qg4+ The Keres Defence (also known as the Kangaroo De-
24.Ke1 h5 25.Qg3 Qxg3 26.fxg3 Rf7 27.Bxf6 gxf6 fence or Franco-Indian Defense) is a chess opening
28.Re8+ Kg7 29.Kf2 Kh6 30.b4 Kg5 31.Ra8 Kxf5 characterised by the moves:
32.Rxa7 d6 33.a4 Ke6 34.a5 bxa5 35.Rxa5 f5
36.c5 Rh7 37.cxd6 cxd6 38.b5 h4 39.gxh4 Rxh4 1. d4 e6
40.Ra8 Rb4 41.Rb8 Kd5 42.Kf3 Rb3+ 43.Kf4 Kc5
2. c4 Bb4+
44.Rc8+ Kxb5 45.Kxf5 Re3 46.Kf4 Re1 47.Rd8
Kc5 48.Rc8+ Kd4 49.Kf3 d5 50.Kf2 Re5 51.Ra8
Kc3 52.Ra3+ Kb4 53.Ra1 d4 54.Rc1 d3 55.Rc8 The opening is named for Estonian grandmaster Paul
d2 56.Rb8+ Kc3 57.Rc8+ Kd3 58.Rd8+ Kc2 Keres.
59.Rc8+ Kd1 60.Rc7 Rf5+ 61.Kg2 Ke2 62.Re7+
Kd3 63.Rd7+ Ke3 64.Re7+ Kd4 65.Rd7+ Rd5 0–1 9.11.1 History
• Susan Polgar–Speelman, Netherlands 1993: [3]
This opening was known since the 1840s and was played
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ 3.Nc3 b6 4.e4 Bb7 5.d5 Qe7
by Henry Thomas Buckle in his fourth match game with
6.Be2 Nf6 7.f3 exd5 8.cxd5 c6 9.dxc6 Nxc6 10.Nh3
Johann Löwenthal, London 1851.[1][2] The standard reply
d5 11.exd5 0-0-0 12.Bg5 Rhe8 13.Bxf6 gxf6
today, 3.Bd2, was recommended by Howard Staunton.
14.Nf4 Qe5 15.Qd2 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nb4 17.Kf2
Nxd5 18.Nd3 Nxc3 0–1

• Lucian Filip-Igor Kovalenko, Iasi, Romania 2014[4]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Nf3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2
Bxf3 6. exf3 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 d5 8. cxd5 Qxd5 9.
Nc3 Qxf3 10. Rg1 Qh5 11. Nb5 Na6 12. Qc2 Ne7
13. Qa4 O-O 14. Qxa6 Qxh2 15. Rg2 Qh6 16. Qa3
Nf5 17. g4 Nh4 18. Rg3 c6 19. g5 Qg6 20. Bd3
Nf5 21. Nd6 Qh5 22. Bxf5 Qh1+ 23. Ke2 Qxa1
24. Bc2 Qc1 25. Qd3 g6 26. Ne4 Rad8 27. Rh3
Kg7 28. Rxh7+ 1-0
9.10.3 See also
• List of chess openings
9.11.2 Discussion
White can respond 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2, or 3.Bd2. The game
often transposes to a Nimzo-Indian Defence, a Dutch
Defence, a Queen’s Gambit Declined, an English De-
fence, or a Bogo-Indian Defence. 3.Nc3 is likely to trans-
pose into one of those openings: 3...Nf6 (Nimzo-Indian),
3...f5 (Dutch; Korn gives 3...Bxc3+ 4.bxc3 f5!,[3] played
by Buckle) 3...d5 (an unusual form of QGD), or 3...b6
(English). Black has the same options after 3.Nd2, ex-
cept that 3...Nf6 4.Nf3 is a Bogo-Indian.
After 3.Bd2, Black can continue with 3...Bxd2+ into a
line of the Bogo-Indian, and 3...a5 will also usually trans-
pose to a Bogo-Indian when White plays Nf3. Or Black
9.12. DUTCH DEFENCE 237

can allow White to play e4: 3...Qe7 4.e4 d5 (Black ob- 9.12 Dutch Defence
tained a good game in Llanos–Hoffman, San Luis Clarin
1995 with 4...Nf6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 d6 7.Bd3 e5 The Dutch Defence is a chess opening characterised by
8.d5 0-0)[4] 5.Bxb4 (5.e5 Timman–Spraggett, Montpel- the moves:
lier 1985)[5][6] Qxb4+ 6.Qd2! Qxd2+ (if 6...Nc6 then
7.Nc3!) 7.Nxd2 with slight advantage for White.[7]
1. d4 f5

9.11.3 See also

9.12.1 History
• List of chess openings
Elias Stein (1748–1812), an Alsatian who settled in The
• List of chess openings named after people Hague, recommended the defence as the best reply to
1.d4 in his 1789 book Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs,
avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu.
9.11.4 References
Siegbert Tarrasch rejected the opening as unsound in his
Notes 1931 work The Game of Chess, arguing that White should
reply with the Staunton Gambit, with White being better
after 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.f3! exf3.[1]
[1] Hooper, Whyld (1987)

[2] Löwenthal vs. Buckle, London 1851 Chessgames.com

9.12.2 Theory
[3] Korn, Walter (1982). “Queen’s Pawn Games”. Modern
Chess Openings (12th ed.). David McKay Company, Inc. Black’s 1... f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square
p. 312. ISBN 0-679-13500-6. and looks towards an attack on White’s kingside in the
middlegame. However, it weakens Black’s own kingside
[4] Schiller (1998), p. 227
somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black’s de-
[5] Timman vs. Spraggett, Montpellier 1985 Chess- velopment. The Dutch is rare in top-level play. It has
games.com never been one of the main lines against 1.d4, though in
the past a number of top players, including Alexander
[6] Matanović 1996 (Vol A), p. 295, note 73 Alekhine, Bent Larsen, Paul Morphy and Miguel Naj-
dorf, have used it with success. Perhaps its high-water
[7] Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982). Batsford Chess mark occurred in 1951, when both world champion
Openings. American Chess Promotions. p. 47. ISBN 0- Mikhail Botvinnik and his challenger, David Bronstein,
7134-2112-6.
played it in their World Championship match in 1951.
Among the world’s current top 10 players, its only con-
Bibliography sistent practitioner is Hikaru Nakamura.
White most often fianchettoes his king’s bishop with g3
• Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). “Keres De- and Bg2. Black also sometimes fianchettoes his king’s
fence”. Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publish- bishop with ...g6 and ...Bg7 (the Leningrad Dutch), but
ing Company. pp. 68–69. ISBN 0-02-016590-0. may instead develop his bishop to Be7, d6 (after ...d5),
or b4 (the latter is most often seen if White plays c4
• Schiller, Eric (1998). Unorthodox Chess Openings. before castling). Play often runs 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6
Cardoza Publishing. pp. 227–28. ISBN 0-940685- 4.Nf3 (4.Nh3!? is also possible, intending Nf4–d3 to
73-6. control the e5 square if Black plays the Stonewall Vari-
ation) Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 and now Black chooses be-
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1987). “Keres
tween 6...d5 (the characteristic move of the Stonewall),
Defence”. The Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford
6...d6, the Ilyin–Zhenevsky System (less popular to-
University Press. p. 164. ISBN 0-19-281986-0.
day), or Alekhine’s move 6...Ne4!? retaining the option
• Matanović, Aleksandar, ed. (1996). Encyclopaedia of moving the d-pawn either one or two squares.
of Chess Openings. Vol A (2nd ed.). Yugoslavia: The Stonewall Dutch enjoyed a resurgence of interest
Chess Informant. in the 1980s and 1990s, when leading grandmasters
Artur Yusupov, Sergey Dolmatov, Nigel Short and Simen
Agdestein helped develop the system where Black plays
9.11.5 External links an earlier ...d5 and places his dark-squared bishop on
d6.[2] Termed the Modern Stonewall, this setup has re-
• Chess Opening Explorer Chessgames.com mained more popular than the traditional early ...Be7.
238
The opening’s attacking potential is shown in the Polish 9.12.4 ECO
Immortal, in which Miguel Najdorf, using the Stonewall
Variation, sacrificed all of his minor pieces to win by The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has twenty
checkmate.
9.12.3 White continuations
2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6
The traditional move order involves White playing 2.c4.
More commonly, White will start with 2.g3. Some com-
mon continuations are: c4 is played after g3 and Bg2; c4
is played after Nf3; and c4 is played after 0-0.
Examples:
• traditional: 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d6
common: 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0
0-0 6.c4 d6 (diagram)
Other second moves
White has various more aggressive alternatives to the
standard moves, including
• 2.Nc3 Nf6 (or d5) 3.Bg5;
• 2.Bg5 (hoping for the naive 2...h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3
(4.e4!? is also playable) f4? 5.e3 fxg3?? 6.Qh5#);
• 2.e4!?, the Staunton Gambit, named after Howard
Staunton, who introduced it in his match against
Bernhard Horwitz.[3][4] The Staunton Gambit was
once a feared attacking line,[5] but it has been out
of favor for over 80 years.[6] Grandmaster Larry
Christiansen and International Master Jeremy Sil-
man have opined that it “offers White equality at
best.”[7]
• Carl Mayet introduced a completely different gam-
bit approach to the Dutch in 1839 against von der
[8]
Lasa, playing 2.h3 followed by 3.g4. Von der
Lasa later published analysis of this line in the
first edition of the Handbuch des Schachspiels.[9][10]
Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world’s leading play-
ers, reintroduced the line into tournament practice
in Korchnoi–Känel, Biel 1979.[11] GM Christiansen
later concluded, as von der Lasa and Staunton had
done over 140 years earlier, that Black could get a
good game by declining the gambit with 2...Nf6 3.g4
d5![12]
Black sometimes starts with the move-order 1...e6 to
avoid these lines although then Black must be ready to
play the French Defense if White plays 2.e4 and Black
can no longer play the Leningrad Dutch.
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
codes for the Dutch Defence, A80 through A99.
• A80: 1.d4 f5
• A81: 1.d4 f5 2.g3
• A82: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 (Staunton Gambit)
• A83: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (Staunton
Gambit)
• A84: 1.d4 f5 2.c4
• A85: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (Rubinstein Variation)
• A86: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3
• A87: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
(Leningrad Dutch)
• A88: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 (Leningrad Dutch)
• A89: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 (Leningrad Dutch)
• A90: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2
• A91: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7
• A92: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
• A93: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d5 7.b3 (Botvinnik Variation)
• A94: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d5 7.b3 c6 8.Ba3 (Stonewall)
• A95: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d5 7.Nc3 c6 (Stonewall)
• A96: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d6
• A97: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 (Ilyin–Genevsky Variation)
• A98: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qc2 (Ilyin–Genevsky Varia-
tion)
• A99: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-
0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 (Ilyin–Genevsky Varia-
tion)
9.12.5 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
• Stonewall Attack
9.13. STAUNTON GAMBIT
9.12.6 References
[1] Tarrasch, Siegbert (1987) [1934]. The Game of Chess.
Courier Dover Publications. p. 348. ISBN 978-0-486-
25447-0.
[2] Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar (2010). Win with the
Stonewall Dutch. Gambit. p. 6. ISBN 1-906454-07-8.
[3] “Howard Staunton vs Bernard Horwitz, 3rd match game,
London 1846”. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
[4] Hooper, D.; Whyld, K. (1992). The Oxford Companion
to Chess, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. p. 393.
ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
[5] In 1939, Fine wrote that, “The Staunton Gambit ... offers
White considerable attacking chances.” Fine, R.; Griffith,
R.C.; White, J.H. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th
edition. David McKay. p. 176. In 1964, Horowitz
wrote that the Staunton Gambit gives White “sharp at-
tacking chances for his Pawn” and places the opponent
at a psychological disadvantage by requiring Black to re-
nounce his aggressive intentions and “resign himself to
an accurate and stubborn defense”.Horowitz, I.A. (1964).
Chess Openings: Theory and Practice. Simon and Schus-
ter. p. 611. More recent writers have observed that
fear of the Staunton Gambit has discouraged many play-
ers from using the Dutch. Yet many have used it anyway
Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense.
Chess Digest. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.; Schiller, E.;
Bill Colias (1993). How to Play Black Against the Staunton
Gambit. Chess Digest. p. 4. ISBN 0-87568-236-7.
[6] In 1925, the editors of the Fourth Edition of Modern Chess
Openings (MCO-4) wrote that the Staunton Gambit “has
fallen out of favour for no clear reason”. Griffith, R.C.;
White, J.H. and M.E. Goldstein (1925). Modern Chess
Openings, 4th edition. Whitehead & Miller. p. 120. In
1939, Fine wrote in MCO-6, “The Staunton Gambit fell
out of favour some time ago and still remains so ... .” Fine,
R.; Griffith, R.C.; White, J.H. (1939). Modern Chess
Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. 176. Grand-
master Nick de Firmian writes in MCO-15 (2008) that
the Staunton Gambit “is not in much favor today”. de Fir-
mian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition.
Random House. p. 494. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7.
[7] Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense.
Chess Digest. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.
[8] von der Lasa, T. (1859). Berliner Schach-Erinnerungen.
Verlag von Veit & Co, Leipzig. pp. 79–80.
[9] Bilguer, P. (1843). Handbuch des Schachspiels. Verlag
von Veit & Co, Berlin. pp. 234–235, section 3, rows 4–6.
[10] Alan L. Watson (1995). The Anti-Dutch Spike: g4! in the
Krejcik, Korchnoi, and Alapin Variations. Blackmar Press.
p. 36. ISBN 0-9619606-2-0.
[11] Korchnoi–Känel, Biel 1979
[12] Christiansen, L.; Silman, J. (1989). The Dutch Defense.
Chess Digest. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6.
239
9.12.7 Further reading
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The
Oxford Companion To Chess. Oxford University.
ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• Aagaard, Jacob (2001). Dutch Stonewall. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 9781857442526.
• Pinski, Jan (2002). Classical Dutch. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 1-85744-307-1.
• Williams, Simon (2003). Play The Classical Dutch.
Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-88-3.
• McDonald, Neil (2004). Starting out: The Dutch
Defence. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-857443-77-2.
• Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar; Agdestein, Simen
(2009). Win With the Stonewall Dutch. Gambit.
ISBN 1-906454-07-8.
• Williams, Simon; Palliser, Richard; Vigus, James
(2010). Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-624-1.
9.12.8 External links
• Learning the Dutch Defense
• Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs 1789 (Google
Books)
9.13 Staunton Gambit
The Staunton Gambit is a chess opening characterized
by the moves:
1. d4 f5 (the Dutch Defence)
2. e4!?
White sacrifices a pawn for quick development, hoping to
launch an attack against Black’s kingside, which has been
somewhat weakened by 1...f5.
Black can decline the gambit with 2...d6, transposing to
the Balogh Defence; or 2...e6, transposing to the Franco-
Hiva. But accepting the pawn with 2...fxe4 is considered
stronger than transposing to either of those offbeat de-
fenses.
Although the Staunton Gambit was once a feared weapon
for White, it is rarely played today, since theory has shown
how to neutralize it, and White scores only about 50 per-
cent.
The ECO codes for Staunton Gambit are A82 and A83.
240
9.13.1 Gambit accepted
After 2...fxe4, play usually proceeds 3.Nc3 Nf6.
Main line: 4.Bg5
The main line runs 4.Bg5, first played by Howard
Staunton against Bernhard Horwitz in London, 1846.[1]
After 4.Bg5, a common trap is 4...d5? 5.Bxf6 exf6
6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxd5 Qxd5 8.Nxd5 when White has re-
gained his pawn, and since his knight is attacking the
pawns on both c7 and f6, will come out a pawn ahead.
Instead, Black usually tries to develop quickly and for-
tify his kingside, giving back the pawn if necessary, with
4...Nc6 5.d5 (White can regain the pawn with 5.Bxf6
exf6 6.Nxe4, but after 6...Qe7, white has no good way
to defend the knight. Everything except for 7.Qe2 allows
d5 or f5, winning a piece, while after the forcing 7.Qe2
Nxd4 8.Qd3 d5 9.Qxd4 Qxe4+ 10.Qxe4 dxe4, Black has
an extra pawn and the two bishops for no compensation,
and should win with best play.) 5...Ne5 6.Qd4 Nf7, while
6.Qe2 is a modern alternative.
4.f3
White can also try 4.f3 in the style of the Blackmar-
Diemer Gambit, whereupon White gets good compensa-
tion after 4...exf3. So Black generally plays 4...d5! 5.fxe4
dxe4. Black can also try 4...e3, returning the pawn in or-
der to hinder White’s development.
4.g4?!
The Queen’s Knight Defense was featured (although not
4.g4?! (the Bayonet Attack or Tartakower Variation) mentioned by name) in the season four episode of Chuck
fails to provide enough compensation after 4...h6!. entitled "Chuck Versus the Family Volkoff".
9.13.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
9.13.3 Notes
[1] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=
1001250
9.13.4 External links
• The Staunton Gambit 1.d4 f5 2.e4
• Opening Report: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 (3566 games)
• Campbell Report, Mark Morss, Staunton Gambit
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
9.14 Queen’s Knight Defense
The Queen’s Knight Defense (also known as the
Nimzowitsch Queen Pawn Defence or Bogoljubow–
Mikenas Defense) is a chess opening defined by the
moves:
1. d4 Nc6
Unless the game transposes to another opening, the
Encyclopedia of Chess Openings code for the Queen’s
Knight Defense is A40.
9.14.1 Discussion
This opening was tried by some hypermodern players
such as Aron Nimzowitsch and Efim Bogoljubov, but it
has never become very popular. The move 1...Nc6 is a
fairly committal move which blocks Black’s c-pawn; usu-
ally Black delays playing it until White’s setup is clear.
Most games featuring 1.d4 Nc6 transpose to another
opening. After 2.e4 the Nimzowitsch Defense arises. Af-
ter 2.Nf3 d5 a variation of the Queen’s Pawn Game is
possible. After 2.c4 d5 the opening is a Chigorin De-
fense.
There are some lines which are unique to 1.d4 Nc6, most
importantly 2.d5 which chases the knight away, usually
to e5. The opening resembles an Alekhine’s Defence but
on the opposite side of the board. In an opening book by
Sid Pickard, this variation was called the Bozo–Indian
Defense – “Bozo” being a combination of the prefixes
“Nimzo” and “Bogo”.
9.14.2 Variations
• 2.d5 Nb8 (Montevideo Retreat)
• 2.c4 e5 3.d5 Nd4 (Cannstatter Gambit)
• 2.c4 e5 3.d5 Nce7 (Lithuanian Variation)
9.14.3 Illustrative game
Erich Weinitschke vs Efim Bogoljubov, Bad Elster (Ger-
many) 1938:[1]
1. d4 Nc6 2. d5 Ne5 3. f4 Ng6 4. e4 e5 (this position
more commonly occurs from the Nimzowitsch Defense
by 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.d5 Nce7 4.f4 Ng6) 5. f5 Qh4+
6. Kd2 Qxe4 7. fxg6 Qxd5+ 8. Ke1 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1
hxg6 10. Nc3 c6 11. Nf3 f6 12. Bd3 Ne7 13. Re1 d5
14. h3 e4 15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Nxe4 Kf7 17. Bd2 Nf5
18. b3 g5 19. Ke2 Nd6 20. Nf2 Bf5 21. Nd4 Bg6 22.
9.15. ENGLUND GAMBIT 241

Kf1 Nf5 23. Ne2 Bc5 24. Ne4 Bb6 25. c4 Rad8 26. be able to obtain a greater advantage against the En-
Red1 Rxd2 27. Nxd2 Ne3+ 0–1 glund than against the Budapest and Albin, against all ap-
proaches by Black. However, since the Budapest and Al-
bin rely upon White continuing with 2.c4, and can thus
9.14.4 Notes be avoided by continuations such as 2.Nf3 (when 2...e5?
can be met by 3.Nxe5 in either case), it is easier for expo-
[1] Erich Weinitschke vs Efim Bogoljubov game at
nents of the Englund Gambit to get their opening on the
ChessGames.com
board and avoid getting into a typical queen’s pawn type
of game.
9.14.5 References
• David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox- 9.15.1 History
ford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford Univer-
sity. ISBN 0-19-280049-3. 1.d4 e5 is also known as the Charlick Gambit af-
ter Henry Charlick (1845–1916), the second Australian
• Eric Schiller (1997). Unorthodox Chess Openings. chess champion, who introduced the 2...d6 line in the
Cardoza. ISBN 0-940685-73-6. early 1890s.[5] The main line Englund Gambit (2...Nc6,
3...Qe7) was introduced by Kārlis Bētiņš (1867–1943),
who also established the Latvian Gambit. The Swedish
9.15 Englund Gambit player Fritz Carl Anton Englund (1871–1933) sponsored
a thematic tournament in which all games had to begin
The Englund Gambit is a rarely played chess opening with the position after 4.Qd5; the 1.d4 e5 gambit com-
that starts with the moves: plex was later named after him.[3]

1. d4 e5?!
9.15.2 Main variations
Black’s idea is to avoid the traditional closed queen’s pawn
Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit
games and create an open game with tactical chances, but
at the cost of a pawn. The gambit is considered weak;
The Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit, 2...d6, was Char-
Boris Avrukh writes that 1...e5 “seems to me the worst
lick’s original idea to avoid the closed openings, aim-
possible reply to White’s first move”.[1] It is almost never
ing for compensation for a pawn after 3.exd6 Bxd6.[5] A
seen in top-level play, although Paul Keres once tried it.[2]
sample continuation is 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4, when
The gambit is occasionally seen in amateur games and
White remains a pawn up with some advantage. White
in correspondence chess, and the 3...Qe7 version of the
can also delay the immediate 3.exd6, playing 3.Nf3 first,
gambit was frequently used by Henri Grob.[3]
when after 3...Bg4, 4.e4 Nd7 transposes into a gam-
Black has numerous ways to continue after 1.d4 e5 bit line of the Philidor Defence played by Blackburne.
2.dxe5. Black can offer to exchange the d-pawn for Black gets partial compensation for the pawn after 5.exd6
White’s e-pawn with 2...d6, arguing that after White cap- Bxd6 6.Be2 Ngf6 7.Nc3 Qe7.[6] However, White obtains
tures with exd6, ...Bxd6 will offer Black a lead in devel- a large advantage after 2...d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Bg5! Qd7
opment to compensate for the pawn. After the contin- 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Nbd2.[7]
uation 2...Nc6 3.Nf3, Black may round up the e5-pawn
with 3...Qe7, intending to meet 4.Bf4 with the disruptive
4...Qb4+, and ensuring that White’s only way to maintain Soller Gambit
the extra pawn is to expose the queen with 4.Qd5, but
in subsequent play the queen can prove to be awkwardly The Soller Gambit, 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 f6, was named after
placed on e7. 3...Nge7 intending 4...Ng6 is another way its German exponent Karl Soller. The immediate 2...f6 is
to round up the e5-pawn, but requires two tempi, while sometimes seen as well, when 3.Nf3 Nc6 transposes, but
Black can also offer to exchange the f-pawn with 3...f6, 3.e4! Nc6 4.Bc4 gives White a large advantage.[8] In the
or 3...Bc5 intending a subsequent...f6, with similar play Soller Gambit proper, International Master Gary Lane
to the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit except that Black has recommends 4.exf6 Nxf6 5.Bg5.[9] In this line Black
one tempo less. gets partial compensation via 5...h6!, e.g. 6.Bh4 Bc5 (or
The gambit can be considered an inferior relative of the 6...g5 at once) 7.e3 g5 or 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.c3 Bc5, although
[10][11]
Budapest Gambit and Albin Countergambit, as by com- White keeps some advantage.
parison with those gambits, White has not weakened White can also return the pawn via 4.e4, securing the bet-
the b4-square with c2–c4, and may be able to put that ter chances. Then after 4...fxe5 5.Bc4, 5...Nf6 6.Ng5!
tempo to better use in order to avoid giving away any key leads to complications that are very good for White, but
squares.[4] Accordingly, with careful play White should 5...d6 may be an improvement.[12]
242
The Felbecker Gambit, 3...Bc5, usually followed by
...f6, is a variant on the Soller Gambit approach, when
again Black may get partial compensation in such lines
as 4.Nc3 f6 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Bg5 d6 7.e3 h6, but 4.e4 is
also critical, when Black’s best is 4...Qe7 as 4...f6 5.Bc4!
gives White a large advantage.[13]
Zilbermints Gambit
The Zilbermints Gambit, 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7, was
named after the American chess player Lev D. Zilber-
mints who had extensive analysis published on the line in
Blackmar Diemer Gambit World issues 61–63. German
FIDE Master Stefan Bücker provided further analysis in
Kaissiber 5 and 6.[14] The idea is to play ...Ng6 and win
the pawn back.
Gary Lane recommends the response 4.Bf4.[15] After
4...Ng6 5.Bg3, Zilbermints recommends either 5...Bc5
or 5...Qe7 6.Nc3 Qb4, when White’s main responses are
7.Rb1, 7.Qd2 and 7.a3. After 7.Rb1, a possible continua-
tion is 7...Qa5 8.Qd5 Bb4 9.Qxa5 Bxa5 10.e3 0-0 11.Bd3
Re8 12.Bxg6 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 fxg6, when Black’s superior
pawn structure compensates for the lost pawn, while both
7.Qd2 and 7.a3 lead to considerable complications.[16] An
alternative for White is 5.e3, but Black may get some
compensation for the pawn after 5...d6.[17] If 4.Bg5, then
Black obtains a good game via 4...h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3
Nf5.[15]
Thus 4.Nc3 is the most critical response, when 4...Ng6 is
ineffective in view of 5.Bg5! Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5,[18]
so Black may need to fall back upon 4...h6.[17]
Englund Gambit main line
Most common today is 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7.
White can try to keep the extra pawn with 4.Qd5!?, the
Stockholm Variation. Black can try a queenside fi-
anchetto with 4...b6, or attempt to regain the pawn with
4...h6, but neither of those lines provide enough compen-
sation for the pawn.[19][20] Thus, Black usually challenges
the e5-pawn immediately with 4...f6, when play contin-
ues 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Qb3. Black does not get enough com-
pensation with the delayed queenside fianchetto 6...b6[21]
so the main line continues 6...d5. After 6...d5, 7.Nc3
Bd7!, threatening 8...Na5, leads to complications and
good play for Black (e.g. 8.Bg5 Na5 or 8.Qxb7 Rb8
9.Qxc7 Qc5).[3] However, after the stronger responses
7.Bf4 and 7.Bg5 (intending 7...Bd7 8.e3), while Black
retains some compensation for the pawn, White keeps an
edge.[3][22]
Instead, White often allows Black to regain the pawn at
the cost of lagging development. The main line runs
4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 (5.Nc3!? is perfectly playable, as
5...Qxf4 is well met by 6.Nd5!, while 5...Qxb2 6.Bd2
transposes to the main line) 5...Qxb2 6.Nc3![3] White
CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS
must avoid the notorious trap 6.Bc3?? Bb4!, which wins
for Black after 7.Bxb4 Nxb4 or 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3
Qc1#.[23]
After 6.Nc3, 6...Nb4? is refuted by 7.Nd4 c6 8.a4.[3] The
main line instead continues 6...Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Rb3
Qa5 9.e4 Nge7 or 9.a3 Bxc3 10.Bxc3 Qc5, when White
has some advantage due to the lead in development, but
Black is not without chances due to the loose white pieces
and shattered white pawn structure.[24] However, in 2006
Bücker pointed out that 8.Nd5!, previously analysed by
Grob as leading only to an unclear position, has been
improved for White, and Black has yet to find a good
response.[3][25] Avrukh also considers this very strong,
analyzing 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qxa2 10.Rd1 Kd8 11.Ng5
Nh6 12.e6! d6 (12...Qa5? 13.e7+! Ke8 14.Qxa5 Nxa5
15.Nxc7+ wins) 13.exf7 Rf8 14.Nxc7 Kxc7 15.Qxd6+
Kb6 16.Ne4! Qxc2 (or 16...Bf5 17.Nc3 Qxc2 18.Nd5+)
17.Nd2 Rxf7 18.Rb1+ Qxb1+ 19.Nxb1 with “a de-
cisive advantage”. Stefan Bücker offers 13...Qa5 for
Black[25] but concludes that White is clearly better after
14.c3 Rf8 15.Nxh7 Rxf7 16.Ng5 Rf8 17.g3 Ne5 18.Bg2
Nhf7 19.Nxf7+ Rxf7 20.Qd4. Avrukh also considers
8...Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ (9...a6? 10.Rxa5 Nxa5 11.Nxc7+)
10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.Ng5 (the traditional reply 11.e4 may al-
low Black a playable game after 11...a6!? according to
Bücker[25] ) 11...Nh6 12.f4!? a6 13.Rb3 Qxa2 14.Nc3
Qa1+ 15.Rb1 Qa5 16.e3 when Black is “close to los-
ing”, for example 16...Re8 17.Bc4 Nxe5 18.fxe5 Qxe5
19.Bxf7! Qxg5 20.Bxe8 Kxe8 21.Nd5 Qe5 22.0-0 and
“White wins.”[26] Bücker also considers 9.e4!? to be a
strong alternative to 9.Rb5, leading to a clear advantage
for White.[25] Black therefore sometimes tries 4...d6 in-
stead, continuing 5.exd6 Qf6 6.Qc1 (or 6.e3, returning
the pawn).
White’s other major try for advantage is 4.Nc3 Nxe5
5.e4, securing a lead in development and leaving Black’s
queen awkwardly placed on e7.[27] Stefan Bücker recom-
mends 5...Nf6 6.Bg5 c6 7.Nxe5 Qxe5 8.f4 Qe6, with a
playable game but some advantage for White.[3] Viktor
Korchnoi won a miniature in a 1978 simultaneous ex-
hibition with 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Nd5 Nxf3+ 6.gxf3 Qd8
7.Qd4 d6 8.Bg5!,[28] but according to Bücker Black gets
a playable game with 8...f6 9.Bd2 c6 10.Nf4 Qb6.[3]
Alternatives for White
White can decline the Englund Gambit in a number of
ways, including 2.e4 (transposing to the Centre Game)
or 2.c3 (transposing to the Saragossa Opening). 2.d5 is
sometimes seen, but leaves Black with a good game af-
ter 2...Bc5, while 2.e3 can be met by 2...exd4 3.exd4 d5
transposing to the Exchange Variation of the French De-
fence, and in addition Black can avoid 3...d5 and simply
develop with a good game. 2...Nc6 and 2...e4 may also
be playable. After 2.Nf3, Black gets a good game with
2...exd4 3.Nxd4 d5, preparing ...c5, and 2...e4 3.Ne5 d6
4.Nc4 d5 is also good for Black.[29]
9.15. ENGLUND GAMBIT 243

After 2.dxe5 Nc6, instead of 3.Nf3, White can also de- [24] Andrew Martin, Chess Monthly 2000.
fend the e5-pawn with 3.Bf4, when Bücker suggests ei-
ther 3...g5 followed by 4...Bg7, or 3...f6 hoping to get an [25] “Over the Horizons: Repairing the Englund Gambit”
improved version of the Soller Gambit.[3] 3.f4 is some- (PDF). Retrieved 2010-04-22.
times seen, but Black has reasonable chances after 3...f6
or 3...d6. White can also transpose to a line of the [26] Avrukh 2010, pp. 595–96.
Nimzowitsch Defence with 3.e4.
[27] Avrukh 2010, pp. 594–95.

[28] Korchnoi–Koning, simul 1978. The game concluded

9.15.3 See also 8...Qd7 9.Bh3! Qxh3 10.Nxc7+ Kd7 11.Nxa8 Qg2
12.Qa4+ Ke6 13.Qe8+ Kf5 14.Qe4+ Kxg5 15.f4+ 1–0
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people [29] Bücker 1988, p.139

Bibliography
9.15.4 References
Notes • Avrukh, Boris (2010). “1.d4 Volume Two”. Quality
Chess. ISBN 978-1-906552-33-6.
[1] Avrukh 2010, p. 594.
• Bücker, Stefan (1988). Englund Gambit. Edition
[2] Bücker 1988, p. 111. Madler Im Walter Rau Verlag / Düsseldorf. ISBN
3-7919-0301-2.
[3] “Over the Horizons: Visiting Planet Englund” (PDF). Re-
trieved 2008-11-19.
• Burgess, Graham (2000). “The Mammoth Book of
[4] “Daring Defences to 1.d4”. Retrieved 2009-05-03. Chess”. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9.
[5] Hooper and Whyld 1992, p. 73 (“Charlick Gambit” en- • Donnelly, Mike (2005). “Another look at the En-
try).
glund Gambit”., Chess Monthly, April 2005.
[6] Bücker 1988, p. 28.
• Hooper, David and Whyld, Kenneth (1992). The
[7] Smith and Hall 1994, p. 110. Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford University.
[8] Bücker 1988, p. 51.
ISBN 0-19-866164-9.

[9] “Opening Lanes: The World Cup” (PDF). Retrieved • Martin, Andrew (2000). “The Englund Gambit”.,
2008-11-19. Chess Monthly, August 2000.
[10] Bücker 1988, p.64.
• Smith, Ken; Hall, John (1994). The Englund Gam-
[11] Kaissiber 5, p. 31. bit and the Blackburne–Hartlaub Gambit Complex.
Chess Digest. ISBN 0-87568-242-1.
[12] Kaissiber 5, p. 33.

[13] Bücker 1988, p. 55.

9.15.5 External links
[14] Kaissiber 5, p. 35.

[15] “Opening Lanes: The Dashing Danish”. Retrieved 2008- • Gary Lane (2000). “Opening Lanes” (PDF). Chess-
11-19. cafe.com.

[16] Kaissiber 5, p. 37. • Gary Lane (2002). “Opening Lanes” (PDF). Chess-
[17] Kaissiber 5, p. 36. cafe.com.

[18] Bücker 1988,p.54. • Stefan Bücker (2006). “Over the Horizons” (PDF).
Chesscafe.com.
[19] Bücker 1988, p. 83.

[20] Bücker 1988, p. 94. • 1,171 Games at Chess.com

[21] Bücker 1988, p. 95. • Opening Report: 1.d4 e5 (1819 games)

[22] Bücker 1988, p. 104.
• Stefan Bücker (2009). “Over the Horizons Part 2”
[23] Avrukh 2010, p. 595. (PDF). Chesscafe.com.
244 CHAPTER 9. D4 OPENINGS – OTHER VARIATIONS

9.16 Polish Defense The Polish can be used to combat certain variations of
the Réti Opening or King’s Indian Attack.[9] In particu-
The Polish Defense is the name commonly given to one lar, 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b5 is a fully respectable opening that
of several sequences of chess opening moves character- has been successfully played by former World Champion
[10][11][12]
ized by an early ...b5 by Black. The name “Polish De- Anatoly Karpov, among others. It prepares to
fense” is given by analogy to the Polish Opening (ECO fianchetto Black’s queen bishop and prevents White from
A40), 1.b4. The original line was playing the otherwise desirable c4. Note that here 3.e4
would allow 3...Nxe4. White’s second move commits him
to fianchettoing his king bishop rather than developing
1. d4 b5 it along the f1–a6 diagonal, due to the weakness which
would result on the long diagonal.
as played by Alexander Wagner, a Polish player and open- 1...b5 against the English Opening is known as the Hal-
ings analyst, against Kuhn in the 1913 Swiss Correspon- ibut Gambit (or Jaenisch gambit).[13][14][15]
dence Championship. Wagner published an analysis of
the opening in Deutsches Wochenschach in 1914, when
he was living in Stanislau, Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now 9.16.2 See also
Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine).[1] Later the name was also
applied to • List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
1.d4 Nf6
2.Nf3 b5 9.16.3 References
[1] Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). “Polish De-
and other variants where Black delays playing ...b5 until
fence”. The Oxford Companion To Chess. Oxford Univer-
the second or third move, which are sometimes called the sity. p. 313. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
Polish Defense Deferred.
[2] De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
14. Random House Puzzles & Games. p. 497. ISBN
0-8129-3084-3.
9.16.1 Details
[3] Korn, Walter (1957). Modern Chess Openings: Ninth Edi-
With ...b5, Black tries to take control of c4, but 1.d4 tion. Pitman Publishing. p. 225.
b5 is generally considered dubious after 2.e4, threaten- [4] Korn, Walter and Larry Evans (1965). Modern Chess
ing 3.Bxb5. Modern Chess Openings (MCO-14, 1999) Openings: Tenth Edition. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. p.
allots two columns to the Polish, commenting that the 332.
variants where Black waits and plays 2...b5 instead of
1...b5 are much safer.[2] Earlier editions of MCO give [5] Korn, Walter (1982). Modern Chess Openings: Twelfth
only a single column of analysis and consider only the Edition. David McKay. p. 310. ISBN 0-679-13500-6.
2...b5 lines. MCO-9 (1957), states that the Polish “fails [6] Horowitz, I. A. (1964). Chess Openings: Theory and Prac-
because it neglects the centre”.[3] That negative verdict tice. Simon & Schuster. p. 780. ISBN 0-671-20553-6.
was softened in the next edition, MCO-10 (1965), to say
[7] MCO-14, p.503 note (j)
that the Polish “neglects the centre, but is not refuted”.[4]
MCO-12 (1982) retains the “not refuted” assessment and [8] Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian vs Boris Spassky game
notes that the Polish can result by transposition from the score. (Chessgames.com)
Réti system.[5] Other judgments have been more harsh. [9] “Chess Opening Explorer: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b5”.
The 1...b5 Polish was deemed “entirely valueless” by I. Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
A. Horowitz in 1964.[6]
[10] Mednis, Edmar (1994). How Karpov Wins (2nd ed.).
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b5 Dover. p. 128. ISBN 0-486-27881-6.
[11] “Saidy v. Karpov, San Antonio 1972”. Chessgames.com.
The Polish is closely related to the St. George Defence Retrieved 2007-05-02.
(1.e4 a6, usually followed by 2.d4 b5) into which it often
transposes. Boris Spassky played 1.d4 b5 against Tigran [12] “Korchnoi v. Karpov, Moscow 1973”. Chessgames.com.
Petrosian in the decisive 22nd game of their world cham- Retrieved 2007-05-02.
pionship match in 1966. Spassky equalized,[7] but re- [13] Chess Opening Explorer
jected an opportunity to draw, as he was behind by a point
[14] English Opening: Halibut Gambit (A10) – Openings –
in the match and with at most three games remaining, he
Chess.com
was practically forced to play for a win. Petrosian won
the game, thus ensuring retention of his title.[8] [15] English Opening Halibut Gambit – Chess Opening
9.17. WADE DEFENCE 245

9.17 Wade Defence
The Wade Defence is a chess opening characterised by
the initial moves:
1. d4 d6
2. Nf3 Bg4
The position can also arise from the move order 1.Nf3 d6
2.d4 Bg4.
9.17.1 History
The opening is named after British IM Bob Wade[1]
(1921–2008), originally from New Zealand, who played
it for over 30 years. A number of grandmasters have often
played the opening, including Julian Hodgson, Michael
Adams, Vlastimil Jansa, and Tony Miles.
9.17.3
Jouni Yrjölä and Jussi Tella, in their book An Explosive
Chess Opening Repertoire for Black, state that the open-
ing:
42. Rxh5 c4 43. Rh4 c3 44. Rc4 Rxd5 45. Rxc3
Rxa5 46. h4 Rh5 47. Rh3 b5 48. Kg2 Kb6 49.
Kf3 a5 50. Ke2 b4 51. Kd2 Kb5 52. Kc2 a4 53.
Kb2 Rf5 54. h5 a3 55. Kb1 Rf1+ 56. Ka2 Ka4
57. Rh4 Rf2+ 58. Ka1 a2 59. h6 Ka3 0–1[4]
• Reynaldo Vera–Boris Gulko, Lucerne 1993:[5]
1. d4 d6 2. Nf3 Bg4 3. c4 Nd7 4. Nc3 e5 5. e3
c6 6. h3 Bh5 7. Be2 Be7 8. 0-0 f5!? (8...Ngf6 is
more solid) 9. c5? (better is 9.e4! f4 10.c5!) e4!
10. cxd6 Bxd6 11. Nd2 Bxe2 12. Qxe2 Ngf6 13.
Nc4 Bc7 14. b3?! b5! 15. Nd2 Qe7 16. Rd1
0-0 17. Nf1 Nb6 18. Bb2 Nfd5 19. a4 f4! 20.
exf4 Nxf4 21. Qxe4 Qg5 22. Qf3 Rae8 23. Qg4?
(23.Re1) Qxg4 24. hxg4 b4 25. Na2 Ne2+ 26.
Kh1 Nd5 27. f3 Re6 28. Bc1 Rff6 29. g5 Rf5 30.
Nh2 Bxh2 0–1 (31.Kxh2 Rh6+! 32.gxh6 Rh5#)[6]
See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people

[...] was played in 1938 by Rudolf Spiel- 9.17.4 Notes

mann and used in the 1960s by Stein and
Kavalek among others ... But the towering fig- [1] See Nigel Davies article showing Wade’s own claim of his
ure of the line is Julian Hodgson, who pop- “own defence”.
ularized it with many dynamic performances.
[2] Yrjölä and Tella (2001), p. 76
Among the other practitioners, the contribu-
tions of Miles, Adams, Hickl and Jansa to the [3] Veselin Topalov vs Michael Adams game at
theoretical development of the line are worth ChessGames.com
mentioning.[2]
[4] Notes based on those in Yrjölä and Tella, p. 88.

In recognition of Hodgson’s contributions, the authors re- [5] Reynaldo Vera vs Boris Gulko game at ChessGames.com
fer to the opening as the “Hodgson Variation” rather than
[6] Notes based on those in Yrjölä and Tella, pp. 96-97.
the “Wade Defence”.

9.17.2 Illustrative games 9.17.5 References

• Jouni Yrjölä and Jussi Tella (2001). An Explosive
• Veselin Topalov–Michael Adams, Dortmund
Chess Opening Repertoire for Black. Gambit Publi-
1996:[3]
cations Ltd. ISBN 1-901983-501.
1. Nf3 d6 2. d4 Bg4 3. c4 Nd7 4. e4 Bxf3!? 5.
Qxf3 g6 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. Qd1 c5! 8. d5 Bxc3+!
9. bxc3 Ngf6 10. f3 Qa5 11. Qb3 0-0-0 12. Be2
Rdg8! 13. Rb1 Qc7 14. Be3 Kb8 15. Qc2 g5
16. 0-0 Rg6 17. Rb2 Ka8 18. Rfb1 Rb8! 19.
Kh1 h5 20. Qd2? (better is 20.Rb5 “with a more
unclear position”) g4 21. Qc2 gxf3 22. gxf3 Ne5
23. f4 Qc8 24. Bf1? (better is 24.f5 Rg7 25.Bh6
Rg8 26.Bf4 Ned7, although Black still has a large
advantage) Nxc4! (with a winning position) 25.
Bxc4 Qh3 26. Rf1 Qxe3 27. Qd3 Qxe4+ 28.
Qxe4 Nxe4 29. Bd3 f5 30. Bxe4 fxe4 31. Re2
a6 32. Rxe4 Rg7 33. a4 Ka7 34. Rfe1 Rf8 35.
a5 Rff7 36. R1e3 Rg4 37. Rxe7 Rxe7 38. Rxe7
Rxf4 39. Re6 Rc4 40. Rxd6 Rxc3 41. Rh6 Rd3
Chapter 10

Flank openings

10.1 Flank opening • 1.Nc3 – Dunst Opening

• 1.Nh3 – Amar Opening, also known as Paris Open-

A flank opening is a chess opening played by White and
ing
typified by play on one or both flanks (the portion of the
chess board outside the central d and e files). White plays
in hypermodern style, attacking the center from the flanks 10.1.2 Zukertort Opening (1.Nf3)
with pieces rather than occupying it with pawns. These
openings are played often, and 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 trail only If White opens with 1.Nf3, the game often becomes one
1.e4 and 1.d4 in popularity as opening moves. of the d4 openings (closed games or semi-closed games)
by a different move order (this is called transposition),
but unique openings such as the Réti and King’s Indian
10.1.1 Classification
Attack are also common. The Réti itself is characterized
• 1.c4 – English Opening by White playing 1.Nf3, fianchettoing one or both bish-
ops, and not playing an early d4 (which would generally
• 1.Nf3 – Zukertort Opening– characteristically fol- transpose into one of the 1.d4 openings).
lowed by fianchettoing one or both bishops, and
The King’s Indian Attack (KIA) is a system of develop-
without an early d4, can lead to the Réti Opening
ment that White may use in reply to almost any Black
• 1.f4 – Bird’s Opening opening moves. The characteristic KIA setup is 1.Nf3,
2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.Nbd2, and 7.e4, although
• 1.b3 – Larsen’s Opening these moves may be played in many different orders. In
fact, the KIA is probably most often reached after 1.e4
• 1.g3 - King’s Fianchetto Opening, also known as
when White uses it to respond to a Black attempt to
Benko’s Opening
play one of the semi-open games such as the Caro-Kann,
French, or Sicilian, or even the open games which usually
In addition, some flank openings that are considered come after 1.e4 e5. Its greatest appeal may be that by
irregular: adopting a set pattern of development, White can avoid
the large amount of opening study required to prepare to
• 1.a3 – Anderssen’s Opening meet the many different possible Black replies to 1.e4.
• 1.a4 – Ware Opening
• 1.b4 – Sokolsky Opening, also known as Polish or 10.1.3 English Opening (1.c4)
Orangutan Opening
English Opening
• 1.c3 – Saragossa Opening
• 1.f3 – Barnes Opening, also known as Gedult’s The English also frequently transposes into a d4 opening,
Opening but it can take on independent character as well including
symmetrical variations (1.c4 c5) and the Sicilian Defense
• 1.g4 – Grob’s Attack in reverse (1.c4 e5).
• 1.h3 – Clemenz Opening, or Basman’s Attack
• 1.h4 – Desprez Opening, or Kadas Opening 10.1.4 Bird’s Opening (1.f4)
• 1.Na3 – Durkin Opening, also known as Durkin’s Bird’s Opening
Attack or the Sodium Attack

246
10.2. LARSEN’S OPENING 247

With Bird’s Opening White tries to get a strong grip on
the e5-square. The opening can resemble a Dutch De-
fense in reverse after 1.f4 d5, or Black may try to disrupt
White by playing 1...e5!? (From’s Gambit).
10.1.5 Others
Larsen’s Opening (1.b3) and the Sokolsky Opening
(1.b4) are occasionally seen in grandmaster play. Benko
used 1.g3 (Benko Opening) to defeat both Fischer and
Tal in the 1962 Candidates Tournament in Curaçao.
10.1.6 See also
• Open Game (1.e4 e5)
• Semi-Open Game (1.e4 other)
• Closed Game (1.d4 d5)
• Semi-Closed Game (1.d4 other)
The flank opening move 1.b3 prepares to fianchetto the
queen’s bishop where it will help control the central
squares in hypermodern fashion and put useful pressure
on Black’s kingside. The b2-bishop is often a source
of recurring irritation for Black, who should not treat it
lightly.
Although Bent Larsen was initially very successful with
this opening, it suffered a setback in the 1970 USSR
vs. Rest of the World match in Belgrade, in which
Larsen played this opening against reigning World Cham-
pion Boris Spassky and lost in 17 moves.[1] (Of the 42
games between Spassky and Larsen, Spassky won over-
all with 19 wins, 6 losses, and 17 draws.)[2] Larsen was
also decisively defeated when playing this opening against
Rosendo Balinas, Jr. at Manila in 1975.[3]
Notably, the opening received interest from Bobby Fis-
cher the same year, who employed 1.b3 on at least five
occasions, winning all five, including games with GMs
Filip and Mecking (Palma de Mallorca 1970 Interzonal),
GM Tukmakov (Buenos Aires 1970), and GM Andersson
(Siegen 1970).

• Irregular chess opening

10.2.1 Popularity

10.1.7 References The move 1.b3 is less popular than 1.g3 (Benko’s Open-
ing), which prepares a quick kingside castling. According
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Ox- to ChessBase, 1.b3 ranks sixth in popularity out of the
ford Companion to Chess, Oxford University, ISBN possible twenty first moves while the fifth-ranking 1.g3
0-19-280049-3 is about three times as popular. Larsen frequently used
unconventional openings of this sort. He believed it to
• De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings be an advantage in that Black, usually unfamiliar with
(MCO-14 ed.), Random House Puzzles & Games, such openings, is forced to rely on his own abilities in-
ISBN 0-8129-3084-3 stead of relying on memorized, well-analyzed moves of
more common White openings.

10.1.8 Further reading The relative unpopularity of 1.b3 compared to 1.g3, is

probably because with 2.Bg2, the move c4 is often played
• Kosten, Tony; Palliser, Richard; Vigus, James later to strengthen the fianchettoed bishop’s diagonal;
(2008), Dangerous Weapons: Flank Openings, whereas if f4 is played to strengthen the bishop’s diag-
Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-583-1 onal after 1.b3 and 2.Bb2, it weakens the kingside—the
usual destination for White’s king when castling.

10.2 Larsen’s Opening 10.2.2 Main lines

Larsen’s Opening (also called the Queen’s Fianchetto Black has several options to meet 1.b3. The most com-
Opening) is a chess opening starting with the move: mon are:

1. b3 • 1...e5, the Modern Variation, is the most common

It is named after the Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen.
Larsen was inspired by the example of the great
Latvian-Danish player and theoretician Aron Nimzow-
itsch (1886–1935), who often played 1.Nf3 followed
by 2.b3, which is sometimes called the Nimzowitsch–
Larsen Attack. It is classified under the A01 code in the
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.
response, making a grab for the centre and limit-
ing the scope of the white bishop. Play typically
continues 2.Bb2 Nc6. Then the Main line is 3.e3
d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.c4. After 2.Bb2 Nc6, 3.f4 is the
Paschmann Gambit. After 2.Bb2, 2...f5 3.e4 is
called the Ringelbach Gambit.
• 1...d5, the Classical Variation, is the second most
common, also making a grab for the centre and pre-
248 CHAPTER 10. FLANK OPENINGS

serving the option to fianchetto the king’s bishop to 10.2.4 Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack (A06)
oppose the White one. White can play 2.Nf3 to
transpose to the A06 line (see more below). Or else, 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3
White can play 2.Bb2 to proceed in the A01 line.
The opening 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 (ECO A06) is called the
• 1...Nf6, the Indian Variation, developing a piece Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack. It can be derived from 1.b3,
and not committing to a particular pawn formation but 1.Nf3 is more usual. Common replies for Black are
just yet. 2.Bb2 and if 2...g6 then 3.e4, taking advan- 2...c5, 2...Nf6, and 2...Bg4. 2...Nf6 is not that great for
tage of the pinned knight (e.g., not 3...Nxe4 4.Bxh8, the usual reasons that Black should not make ...d5 and
winning a rook at the price of a pawn). 3.g4 is called ...Nf6. 2...c5 is more common although 2...Bg4 is also
the Spike Variation possible. For each, White can play 3.Bb2 or 3.e3. Then
3.Bb2 can be followed by 4.e3.[5]
• 1...c5, the English Variation, retaining the options
of ...d5, or ...d6 followed by ...e5. 2.c4 transpos-
ing to an English Opening or 2.e4 transposing to a 10.2.5 Example games
Sicilian Defence.
Larsen vs. Eley, 1972
• 1...f5, the Dutch Variation. 2.Nf3.
1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6 5.Ne2
Less common lines include: Bd7 6.0-0 Be7 7.f4 e4 8.Ng3 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6
10.c4 d5 11.Nc3 Re8 12.Rc1 Bg4 13.Nce2
• 1...e6, with Black setting up a variation on the Nd7 14.h3 Be2 15.Qxe2 Nc5 16.Qg4 g6 17.f5
French Defence. Here Keene recommends 2.e4 and Nd3 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Rf7 Kf7 20.Rf1 Bf6
if 2...d5 then 3.Bb2.[4] 21.Bxf6 1-0

• 1...c6, a Caro–Kann variant preparing for ...d5. Keene vs. Kovacevic, 1973
Again Keene recommends 2.e4 and if 2...d5, 3.Bb2.
1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 Bg4 3.Bb2 Nd7 4.g3 Bxf3
• 1...b6, the Symmetrical variation, is completely 5.exf3 Ngf6 6.f4 e6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d3
fine for Black. a5 10.a4 c6 11.Nd2 b5 12.Qe2 bxa4 13.Rxa4
Nb6 14.Ra2 a4 15.Rfa1 axb3 16.Rxa8 Nxa8
• 1...b5, the Polish Variation. 17.Nxb3 Nb6 18.f5 exf5 19.Nd4 Qd7 20.Bh3
g6 21.Bxf5 gxf5 22.Ra7 Qxa7 23.Nxc6 Qd7
• 1...Nc6, a variant of the Nimzowitsch Defence, with 24.Nxe7 Kg7 25.Qh5 1-0
this move, Black aims to provide support for the ad-
vance of e-file pawn. The most common sequence
that Black applies is 2...e5 or less commonly 2...d5. 10.2.6 See also
• List of chess openings
10.2.3 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3
• List of chess openings named after people
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2
10.2.7 References
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 is a similar opening. Nimzowitsch pre-
ferred to make the knight move first. Black may play Notes
2...d5 (given below) or 2...g6. After 2...d5, White usually
plays 3.Bb2. With this move, Black usually plays 3...e6. [1] Larsen–Spassky 1970
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bb2
[2] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&
pid=21136&pid2=11227&eresult=
After 2...g6, White can play 3.g3, 3.Bb2, or 3.c4. The
move 3.g3 is the same as 2.g3 g6 3.b3, which gives Reti [3] Larsen–Balinas 1975
Opening (A05) or King’s Indian, Fianchetto without c4
[4] Keene, Raymond (1977). Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack.
(A49). With move 3.Bb2, Black usually plays 3...Bg7. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
White may play 4.g3 or 4.c4; 4.e3 is also possible. With
move 3.c4, Black usually plays 3...Bg7. Then White will [5] Jacobs, Byron & Jonathan Tait. Nimzo-Larsen Attack.
play 4.Bb2. London: Gloucester Publishers plc, (2001)
10.3. ENGLISH OPENING 249

Bibliography 10.3.1 Taxonomy

• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox Opening theoreticians who write on the English Opening
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744- break the opening down into three broad categories, gen-
285-4. erally determined by Black’s choice of defensive setups.

• Jacobs, Byron (2000). Nimzo-Larsen attack. Every-

man Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-286-1. Symmetrical Defense: 1...c5

• Schiller, Eric (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings The Symmetrical Defense (classified A30–39 in ECO),
(Second ed.). Cardoza. pp. 320–29. ISBN 1- which is 1...c5, and is so named because both of the c-
58042-072-9. pawns are advanced two squares, maintaining symme-
try. Note that Black can reach the Symmetrical Defense
through many move orders by deferring ...c5, and often
10.2.8 Further reading does. For example, 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 (or 2.Nf3) c5 is a
Symmetrical Defense even though Black played ...Nf6
• Odessky, Ilya (2008). Play 1.b3!. New In Chess. before ...c5.
ISBN 978-9056912567.
There are several types of positions that can arise from
the Symmetrical Defense. Among the ideas are:[6]
10.2.9 External links
• The Hedgehog system[7] involves a solid but flexible
• ECO A01: Nimzovich–Larsen Attack defence where Black develops by b6, e6, Bb7, and
Be7, before controlling the fifth rank with moves
such as a6 and d6. The game typically involves ex-
10.3 English Opening tended maneuvering, but both players need to be on
the lookout for favorable pawn advances and pawn
breaks.
The English Opening is a chess opening that begins with
the move: • The double fianchetto defence involves Black devel-
oping both bishops by fianchetto to g7 and b7. The
1. c4 line is fairly solid and difficult to defeat at the grand-
master level. Some lines are considered highly draw-
ish, for instance if White’s bishops are also fianchet-
A flank opening, it is the fourth most popular[1][2] and, ac-
toed to g2 and b2 there may be many simplifications
cording to various databases, anywhere from one of the
leading to a simplified and equal position.
two most successful[1] to the fourth most successful[3] of
White’s twenty possible first moves. White begins the
fight for the centre by staking a claim to the d5 square Either player may make an early break in the centre with
from the wing, in hypermodern style. Although many the d-pawn.
lines of the English have a distinct character, the opening
is often used as a transpositional device in much the same • An early d2–d4 for White can arise in 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3
way as 1.Nf3 – to avoid such highly regarded responses Nf6 3.d4. Since this position is often reached af-
to 1.d4 as the Nimzo–Indian and Grünfeld defences, and ter the transposition 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3, where
is considered reliable and flexible. [4] White avoided the Benoni Defense that would arise
after 3.d5, this line is often called the Anti-Benoni.
The English derives its name from the English (unoffi- The games can give a large variety of positional and
cial) world champion, Howard Staunton, who played it tactical ideas. Games usually continue with 3...cxd4
during his 1843 match with Saint-Amant and at London 4.Nxd4 when Black can choose between the sharp
1851, the first international tournament.[5] It did not in- 4...e5 or more sedate moves like the Hedgehog-like
spire Staunton’s contemporaries, and only caught on in the 4...b6 or the more common 4...e6.
twentieth century.[5] It is now recognised as a solid open-
ing that may be used to reach both classical and hyper- • A typical line of play where Black plays an early d5
modern positions. Mikhail Botvinnik, Tigran Petrosian, is 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5, when White usu-
Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen ally trades off in the centre 4.cxd5 Nxd5. White
employed it during their world championship matches. can either challenge the centre with 5.d4 or 5.e4 or
Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from allow Black a space advantage in the centre with
his customary 1.e4 late in his career, employing it against 5.g3. In the latter case, Black can play 5...Nc6
Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno at the Palma de Mal- 6.Bg2 Nc7 followed by 7...e5, reaching a reversed
lorca Interzonal in 1970 and in his 1972 world champi- Maróczy Bind position called the Rubinstein Sys-
onship match against Boris Spassky. tem.
250
Reversed Sicilian: 1...e5
The Reversed Sicilian (classified A20–29 in ECO) is an-
other broad category of defence, introduced by the re-
sponse 1...e5. Note again, that Black can delay playing
...e5, for example 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 where-
upon even though ...e5 has been delayed, once it is played
the defence is classified as a Reversed Sicilian.
• 1...e5 White has Black’s position in the Sicilian but
with an extra tempo. This is often called the Re-
versed Sicilian,[8] though others call it the King’s
English.[9] Bruce Leverett, writing the English chap-
ter in MCO14, stated, “It is natural to treat the En-
glish as a Sicilian reversed, but the results are often
surprising—main lines in the Sicilian Defense corre-
spond to obscure side variations in the English, and
vice versa.”
Other variations
The third broad category are the non-...e5 and non-...c5
responses, classified A10–19 in ECO. Most often these
defences consist of ...Nf6, ...e6, and ...d5 or ...Bb4 sys-
temic responses by Black, or a Slav-like system consist-
ing of ...c6 and ...d5, a direct King’s Indian Defense setup
with ...Nf6, ...g6, ...Bg7, ...0-0, after which ...c5 and ...e5
are eschewed, or 1...f5, which usually transposes to a
Dutch Defense once White plays d4. All irregular re-
sponses such as 1...b6 and 1...g5 are also lumped into this
third broad category.
Common responses include:[1]
• 1...Nf6
The most common response to 1.c4, often
played to arrive at an Indian Defence. How-
ever, more than half the time, Black subse-
quently elects to transpose into either a Sym-
metrical Defense with ...c5, or a Reversed Si-
cilian with ...e5.
• 1...e6
Can lead to a Queen’s Gambit Declined after
2.Nc3 d5 3.d4, but White often prefers 2.Nf3,
which may lead to a variety of openings.
• 1...f5
Leads to a Dutch Defense when White fol-
lows up with d4. Other choices for White are
2.Nc3, 2.Nf3, and 2.g3, where Black usually
plays ...Nf6.
• 1...g6
CHAPTER 10. FLANK OPENINGS
May lead to a Modern Defense or after Nf6 and
d6 or d5 to the King’s Indian Defence or the
Grünfeld Defence, respectively, or stay within
English lines. Often dubbed the Great Snake
variation.
• 1...c6
Can lead to a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5, but
White will often prefer a Caro–Kann Defence
with 2.e4 d5, or a Réti Opening after 2.Nf3 d5
3.b3.
• 1...b6
The English Defence. This setup involves
the fianchetto of the queenside bishop and
2...e6. Often Black will defer the move ....Nf6,
choosing to attack the centre with ...f5 and/or
...Qh4. The English grandmasters Tony Miles
and Jonathan Speelman have successfully used
this opening.
• 1...g5
An eccentric response known as Myers’ De-
fense after Hugh Myers' advocacy of it in print
and actual play.[10][11][12] It is intended as an
improved Grob’s Attack; after 2.d4, Black will
put pressure on the d4 square with moves such
as ...Bg7, ...c5, and ...Qb6.[11][13] According to
Nunn’s Chess Openings, White obtains a small
advantage after 2.d4 Bg7 (offering a Grob-like
gambit: 3.Bxg5 c5) 3.Nc3 h6 4.e4.[14] Myers
recommended 3...c5 (instead of 3...h6); in re-
sponse, Joel Benjamin advocates 4.dxc5![11]
• 1...b5
Called the Jaenisch gambit after Carl
Jaenisch,[15] and dubbed the Halibut Gam-
bit by Eric Schiller “because it belongs at
the bottom of the sea.” Black obtains no
compensation for the sacrificed pawn.[16]
10.3.2 Transposition potential
If White plays an early d4, the game will usually transpose
into either the Queen’s Gambit or an Indian Defence. For
example, after 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 d5 the game has
transposed into the Grünfeld Defence, usually reached by
the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5.
Note, however, that White can also play 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3
g6 3.e4, making it impossible for Black to reach a Grün-
feld, instead more or less forcing him into lines of the
10.3. ENGLISH OPENING 251

King’s Indian Defence with 3...d6. Black also cannot • A26 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6
force a Grünfeld with 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5, since White
can deviate with 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.g3, a line played several • A27 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 (Three Knights Sys-
times by Mikhail Botvinnik in 1958, in his final match for tem)
the world championship with Vasily Smyslov.
Instead of playing an early d4, White can also play Nf3 • A28 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6
and fianchetto the king’s bishop (g3 and Bg2), transposing
into a Réti Opening. • A29 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 (Four
Knights, Kingside Fianchetto)
Also, after 1.c4 c6, White can transpose into the Polish
Opening, Outflank Variation, by playing 2.b4!?, which
• A30 1.c4 c5 (Symmetrical Variation)
can be used as a surprise weapon if Black does not know
very much about the Polish Opening.[17]
• A31 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 (Symmetrical, Benoni
The many different transpositional possibilities available Formation)
to White make the English a slippery opening for Black to
defend against, and make it necessary for him to consider • A32 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6
carefully what move order to employ. For instance, if
Black would like to play a Queen’s Gambit Declined, the • A33 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3
most accurate move order to do so is 1...e6 2.d4 d5. (Of Nc6
course, White can again play the Reti instead with 2.Nf3
d5 3.b3.) If Black plays instead 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 e6, White
• A34 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3
can avoid the QGD by playing 3.e4, the Flohr-Mikenas
Attack.
• A35 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6

10.3.3 ECO • A36 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has classified the • A37 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
English Opening under the codes A10 through A39:
• A38 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
• A10 1.c4 Nf6

• A11 1.c4 c6 • A39 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
• A12 1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4

• A13 1.c4 e6
• A14 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 10.3.4 Depiction in cinema
• A15 1.c4 Nf6 The English Opening is used by Professor Moriarty in
• A16 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 the film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows as he
and Holmes discuss their competing plans over a game
• A17 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 of chess. Both Holmes and Moriarty eventually play the
final moves blindfolded by citing out the last moves in
• A18 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 (Mikenas-Carls Vari- descriptive notation (rather than algebraic, as the former
ation) was contemporary in the late 19th century), ending in
• A19 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 c5 Holmes checkmating Moriarty, just as Watson foils Mo-
riarty’s plans.
• A20 1.c4 e5
The English Opening is also used in Pawn Sacrifice by
• A21 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bobby Fischer in the climactic game six of the 1972
World Chess Championship against Boris Spassky.
• A22 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6
• A23 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6 (Bremen System,
Keres Variation) 10.3.5 See also
• A24 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 (Bremen System
• List of chess openings
with ...g6)
• A25 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 • List of chess openings named after places
252 CHAPTER 10. FLANK OPENINGS

10.3.6 References 10.3.7 Further reading

[1] Meyer-Kahlen, Stefan. “Shredder opening database • Kallai, Gabor; Ribli, Zoltán (1993). Winning With
statistics”. Retrieved 2008-01-19. the English. Henry Holt. ISBN 978-0-8050-2642-9.
[2] “Chess Opening Explorer”. Chessgames.com. Retrieved
2008-01-19.
• Kosten, Tony (1999). The Dynamic English. Gam-
bit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-14-2.
[3] “Chess Openings Database statistics”. Retrieved 2009-
08-16. • Hansen, Carsten (2001). The Symmetrical English.
Gambit. ISBN 978-1-901983-40-1.
[4] Chess Life. 59 (1–7 ed.). United States Chess Federation.
2004. p. 303. • Pritchett, Craig (2008). Play the English. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-545-9.
[5] De Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
15. New York: David McKay Co. p. 675. ISBN 978-0-
8129-3682-7.
10.3.8 External links
[6] Cummings, David (October 1, 2001). Symmetrical En-
glish. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-292-2. • Database Of English Opening Variations
ISBN 1-85744-292-X.

[7] De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-

14. New York: David McKay Co. pp. 661–665. ISBN 10.4 Bird’s Opening
0-8129-3084-3.

[8] Weeks, Mark. “Chess Opening Tutorial : English – Bird’s Opening (or the Dutch Attack) is a chess opening
1...e5”. About, Inc. Archived from the original on De- characterised by the move:
cember 3, 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-19.

[9] Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982). Batsford Chess 1. f4

Openings. B.T.Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-2114-2.
Bird’s is a standard flank opening. White’s strategic ideas
[10] ChessBase.com, Hugh Myers (1930–2008), opening the-
involve control of the e5-square, offering good attack-
oretician (2008-12-25). Retrieved on 2008-12-25.
ing potential at the expense of slightly weakening the
[11] Stefan Bücker, The Impoliteness of Ice Age Openings.
kingside. Black may challenge White’s plan to control e5
Retrieved on 2005-12-27. immediately by playing From’s Gambit (1...e5). How-
ever, the From’s Gambit is notoriously double edged and
[12] Rick Kennedy, Review of A Chess Explorer. Retrieved on should only be played after significant study.
2008-12-27. The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings assigns two codes
for Bird’s Opening: A02 (1.f4) and A03 (1.f4 d5).
[13] Watson remarks, “Note ... how White (by his shockingly
committal first move) has forfeited his chance for [c3],
the key move in several of the most effective defences to
Grob’s Attack”. John L. Watson, English: Franco, Slav 10.4.1 History
and Flank Defences, Batsford, 1981, p. 103. ISBN 0-
7134-2690-X. Watson considers 1...g5 “playable”. Id. The opening was mentioned by Luis Ramírez de Lu-
cena in his book Repetición de Amores y Arte de Aje-
[14] John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gal- drez con Cien Juegos de Partido, published circa 1497.
lagher, Nunn’s Chess Openings, Everyman Publishers, In the mid-nineteenth century the opening was some-
1999, p. 19 n. 1. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
times played by La Bourdonnais and Elijah Williams,
among others. The British master Henry Edward Bird
[15] http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=3&n=887&
ms=c4.b5&ns=15.887
first played it in 1855 and continued to do so for the next
40 years.[1] In 1885, the Hereford Times named it after
[2]
[16] Schiller, Eric (1998). “English Opening • Halbut Gam- him. In the first half of the 20th century Aron Nimzow- [3]
bit”. Unorthodox Chess Openings. Cardoza Publishing. itsch and Savielly Tartakower sometimes played 1.f4.
pp. 135–36. ISBN 0-940685-73-6. In more recent decades, Grandmasters who have used the
Bird’s with any regularity include Bent Larsen, Andrew
[4]
[17] Silman, Jeremy (2004). “The Dynamic English”. Re- Soltis, Lars Karlsson, Mikhail Gurevich, and Henrik
[5]
trieved 2008-01-19. Danielsen.
10.4. BIRD’S OPENING
10.4.2 1...d5
Black’s most common response is 1...d5, when the game Bxh2 16.exf5! Re8 17.fxg6! Qxe3 18.Qxe3 Rxe3
can take on the character of a Dutch Defence (1.d4 19.gxf7; or 13...Bd7 (threatening 14...Rxh2!) 14.Bf2![9]
f5) with colors reversed. White will then often either
fianchetto his king’s bishop with Nf3, g3, Bg2, and 0-
0 with a reversed Leningrad Dutch; adopt a Stonewall 10.4.4 Other Black responses
formation with pawns on d4, e3, and f4 and attempt a
kingside attack; or fianchetto his queen’s bishop to in-
crease his hold on the e5 square. Another strategy, by
analogy with the Ilyin–Zhenevsky variation of the Dutch
Defence, involves White playing e3, Be2, 0-0, d3 and at-
tempting to achieve the break e3–e4 by various means,
e.g. Ne5, Bf3, Qe2 and finally e3–e4, or simply Nc3
followed by e4. Timothy Taylor’s book on Bird’s Open-
ing puts the main line Bird’s Opening as follows: 1.f4 d5
2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5.
10.4.3 From’s Gambit
Black’s sharpest try is 1...e5!?, From’s Gambit, named
for the Danish chess player Martin Severin From (1828–
1895). White then has the option to transpose into the
King’s Gambit with 2.e4. This is an important option
which may cause Black to consider playing a different
line if he wishes to avoid the King’s Gambit. It has been
observed that one of the possible disadvantages of From’s
Gambit is that it is very easy for White to avoid.
If White accepts the gambit with 2.fxe5, Black must
choose between the main line 2...d6 and the rather ob-
scure 2...Nc6. After 2...Nc6, International Master (IM)
Timothy Taylor, in his 2005 book on the Bird’s, rec-
ommends 3.Nc3! Nxe5 4.d4 intending 5.e4, rather
than 3.Nf3?! g5! when Black stands well.[6] Af-
ter the normal 2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6, White must play
4.Nf3, avoiding 4.Nc3?? Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxg3+ 5.hxg3
Bxg3 checkmate. Then Black again has two alterna-
tives: 4...g5 to drive away White’s knight, and 4...Nf6,
threatening 5...Ng4 and 6...Nxh2! Future World Cham-
pion Emanuel Lasker introduced 4...g5 in the game Bird–
Lasker, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1892, so it is known as
“Lasker’s Variation”.[7] Taylor considers 4...g5 dubious;
a quiet response that he considers favorable for White
is 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5! (6.Ng5? leads to a dubious piece
sacrifice) Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3! Be6
(9...Nxe5?! 10.Bf4 f6 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Nxf6!) 10.Bf4
0-0-0+ 11.Ke1 Nge7 12.e3 Ng6 13.Bg5 Rdf8 14.Bf6
Rhg8 15.Be2 Ngxe5 16.Rf1 “with the typical edge for
White that is characteristic of this variation”, according
to Taylor.[8] He also considers the sharper 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4
favorable for White, giving as the main line 6...Ne7 7.d4
Ng6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Qd3 Nc6 (9...Rh5 10.Bg2; 9...Na6
10.c3) 10.c3 (10.Nc3? Nxd4! 11.Qxd4?? Bg3+ wins
White’s queen) Bf5 (10...Qe7 11.Bg2! Bd7 12.Nd2 0-
0-0 13.Ne4! favored White in Taylor–Becerra Rivero,
Minneapolis 2005) 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3.
According to Taylor, White has a large advantage in
253
all lines, although play remains extremely sharp, e.g.
13...Rde8 14.Nd2; 13...Rxh2 14.Rxh2 Bxg3+ 15.Kd1
• The flexible 1...Nf6 is also possible. Then if White
plays 2.b3?! (2.Nf3 is safer), 2...d6! 3.Bb2?! (or
3.Nf3 e5! 4.fxe5 dxe5 5.Nxe5?? Qd4!) e5!, a
sort of From’s Gambit Deferred introduced by IM
Michael Brooks, is dangerous for White, e.g. 4.fxe5
dxe5 5.Bxe5 Ng4! Then 6.Bb2 Bd6 “leaves White in
huge trouble down the e1–h4 diagonal”, and Black
wins an exchange after 7.Nf3 Bxh2! 8.Rxh2 Nxh2.
After the alternative 6.Bg3, 6...Qf6! (even better
than 6...Bd6) 7.c3 (not 7.Nc3? Ne3! 8.dxe3 Bb4)
Bd6 is strong for Black.[10]
• Another popular response is 1...g6, a sort of Modern
Defense, which may transpose into a reversed Dutch
Defense (if Black plays ...d5 and ...c5), or a Sicilian
Defence (if White plays e4 and Black plays ...c5).
Black thus prevents White from playing on the a1–
h8 diagonal.
• Also reasonable is 1...c5, hoping for a transposition
into the Tal Gambit, a favorable variation of the
Sicilian Defence, after 2.e4 d5! 3.exd5 (3.Nc3, the
mellifluously-named “Toilet Variation,” is also pos-
sible) Nf6, but White need not oblige, and may build
up more slowly with 2.Nf3, followed by g3, Bg2, d3
and possibly a later e4.
• The offbeat 1...b6!? is also known, and more
soundly based than the same move after 1.e4 or
1.d4, since 1.f4 does not aid White’s development,
and weakens the a8–h1 diagonal as the move f3 is
no longer available to shore up White’s center. Tay-
lor recommends 2.e4 Bb7 3.d3 e6 4.Nf3 Ne7 5.c3
d5 6.Qc2 Nd7 7.Be3, with a spatial advantage for
White.[11]
• Also possible is 1...b5!?, a form of Polish Defense.
After the natural 2.e4 Bb7, White has no good way
to protect e4 while maintaining his attack on b5,
since 3.Nc3? b4 4.Nd5 e6 wins a pawn.
• If Black chooses the symmetrical reply 1...f5, Tay-
lor considers White’s best line to be quiet play with
2.b3 b6 3.Bb2 Bb7 4.e3, when 4...Nf6 5.Bxf6! exf6
6.Nf3 left White with the better pawn structure in
Larsen–Colon Romero, San Juan 1969. Instead,
4...e6 5.Qh5+ forces the weakening 5...g6, with a
slight advantage to White according to Taylor.[12]
Also possible is the aggressive 2.e4!?, when Tay-
lor analyzes 2...fxe4 3.d3 exd3 4.Bxd3 Nf6 5.Nf3
(5.g4 is well met by 5...d5, when after 6.g5, 6...Bg4
and 6...Ne4 both favor Black) 5...d5 6.0-0, when
254
he considers White to have some, but not enough,
compensation for the sacrificed pawn.[13] Another
possible continuation is 2...fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4,
the Swiss Gambit. This gambit was named by
Alexander Wagner (1868–1942), a Polish chess
player and openings analyst who introduced it in the
Swiss correspondence game Wagner–Kostin, 1910–
11. The term “Swiss Gambit” is often used to re-
fer more generally to 1.f4 f5 2.e4. Chess historian
Edward Winter has criticized that usage, pointing
out that 1.f4 f5 2.e4 was analyzed by F.A. Lange
in the June 1859 Deutsche Schachzeitung, and was
played by many players, including Adolf Anderssen,
in the nineteenth century.[14]
• An aggressive but rare response is 1...g5?!, the
Hobbs Gambit, with play possibly continuing 2.fxg5
h6, a sort of mirror image Benko Gambit. White
can simply return the pawn with 3.g6, leaving Black
with a weakened kingside after 3...fxg6. A variant
is the Hobbs–Zilbermints Gambit, 1...h6 intending
2...g5; against this, White could proceed with 2. e4
g5 3. d4, when Black has lost time and weakened
his kingside.
• Another offbeat try is Martin Appleberry’s
1...Nh6!?. The idea is to meet 2. b3 with 2...e5, an-
other deferred From Gambit, and 2.e4 with 2...d5,
when 3.exd5 Qxd5 would result in a Scandinavian
Defense where White’s pawn is oddly placed on f4.
However, 2.Nf3 avoids both of these lines.
• Another possible reply by Black is 1...Nc6. With
this move, Black lays the support for the advance of
the e-file pawn. The general sequence of moves that
Black may opt for is g6, Bg7 and d6 and eventually
advance the e-file pawn.
10.4.5 Popularity
Out of the twenty possible opening moves, 1.f4 ranks
sixth in popularity in ChessGames.com's database, be-
hind 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, and 1.g3.[15] It is less than
one-twentieth as popular as the mirror image English
Opening (1.c4).[15] The move 1.f4 slightly weakens
White’s king's position.[16] ChessGames.com’s statistics
indicate that the opening is not an effective way of pre-
serving White’s first-move advantage: as of February
2013, out of 3,872 games with 1.f4, White had won
30.7%, drawn 32%, and lost 37.7%, for a total score of
46.7%.[15][17] White scores much better with the more
popular 1.e4 (54.25%), 1.d4 (55.95%), 1.Nf3 (55.8%),
1.c4 (56.3%), and 1.g3 (55.8%).[15]
According to the similar site 365chess.com, which in-
cludes data for lower level games, as of August 2015,
out of 20,010 games with 1.f4, White had won 35.1%,
drawn 25%, and lost 39.9%, for a total score of 47.6%.[18]
The five more popular openings are still substantially [18]
CHAPTER 10. FLANK OPENINGS
more successful for White: 1.e4 (53.15%), 1.d4 (54.8%),
1.Nf3 (55.4%), 1.c4 (54.65%), and 1.g3 (54.9%).[18]
10.4.6 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
10.4.7 Notes
[1] “Having forgotten familiar openings, I commenced adopt-
ing KBP for first move, and finding it led to highly inter-
esting games out of the usual groove, I became partial to
it.” —Henry Bird (1873, entering match play after a six
year absence from chess); Hooper and Whyld (1987), p.
32.
[2] Hooper and Whyld (1992), p. 40.
[3] de Firmian (2008), p. 732.
[4] “The chess games of Lars Karlsson”. Chessgames.com.
Retrieved 2012-09-07.
[5] “The chess games of Henrik Danielsen”. Chess-
games.com. 2010-07-26. Retrieved 2012-09-07.
[6] Taylor (2005), p. 182.
[7] Taylor (2005), pp. 150–51.
[8] Taylor (2005), pp. 149–52.
[9] Taylor (2005), pp. 135–45.
[10] Palliser (2006), p. 124.
[11] Taylor (2005), pp. 202–03.
[12] Taylor (2005), p. 210.
[13] Taylor (2005), pp. 214–16.
[14] Edward Winter, 'The Swiss Gambit' (1998).
[15] Opening Explorer. ChessGames.com. Retrieved on
2009-02-06.
[16] Adorján (1998), p. 27.
[17] White’s overall winning percentage is calculated by taking
the percentage of games won by White and adding half of
the percentage of drawn games, in this case 32.8 plus half
of 25.3.
http://www.365chess.com/opening.php
10.5. BENKO’S OPENING 255

10.4.8 References under A00,[2] but the numerous transpositional possibili-

ties can result in various ECO codes.
• Adorján, András (1998). Black is O.K. in Rare
While it has never been common, the Madras player
Openings. CAISSA Ltd.
Ghulam Kassim noted that “many of the Indian play-
• de Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings ers commence their game in this way” in annotating
(15th edition). Random House Puzzles & Games. the 1828 correspondence match between Madras and
[3]
ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. Hyderabad. The hypermodern player Richard Reti
played 1.g3 several times at Baden-Baden in 1925, with
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1992). The Ox- mixed results. 1.g3 received renewed attention after Pal
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University Press. Benko used it to defeat Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal
ISBN 0-19-866164-9. in the 1962 Candidates Tournament in Curaçao, part
of the 1963 World Championship cycle.[4] Benko used
• Palliser, Richard (2006). Beating Unusual Chess
the opening the first eleven times he was White in the
Openings. Gloucester Publishers. ISBN 978-1-
tournament.[5]
85744-429-2.
• Taylor, Timothy (2005). Bird’s Opening: Detailed
Coverage of an Underrated and Dynamic Choice for 10.5.1 Sample lines
White. Gloucester Publishers. ISBN 1-85744-402-
7. The following lines are examples of the kinds of positions
which can develop from the King’s Fianchetto opening.
• A reference to the Bird’s Opening was shown in Move order is flexible in each case.
the Television series "Monk" (Season 7, Episode 2,
“Mr. Monk and the Genius”) in which Monk seeks
help in catching a chess master plotting to kill his King’s Indian Attack
wife from another chess player, who is seen playing
the Bird’s Opening and making the comment “The King’s Indian Attack
Bird, as if I haven't seen that one before”.
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.Nf3 c6 4.O-O Bg4 5.d3 Nbd7
10.4.9 External links 6.Nbd2 e5 7.e4 - Réti Opening, King’s Indian Attack,
Yugoslav Variation (ECO A07)
• Opening Report. Bird, Williams Gambit: 1.f4 d5
2.e4 (47 games)
English Opening
• Grandmaster with many OTB games in this opening,
and also his YouTube channel with Bird’s Opening English Opening, Botvinnik System
lessons and live games.
1.g3 g6 2.Bg2 Bg7 3.c4 e5 4.Nc3 d6 5.d3 f5 6.e4
Nf6 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.O-O O-O 9.Nd5 - English Opening,
10.5 Benko’s Opening Botvinnik System (ECO A26)

The King’s Fianchetto Opening or Benko’s Opening

(also known the Hungarian Opening, the Barcza Opening, 10.5.2 See also
and the Bilek Opening) is a chess opening characterized by
the move: • List of chess openings

• List of chess openings named after people

1. g3

White’s 1.g3 ranks as the fifth most popular opening 10.5.3 Notes
move, but it is far less popular than 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4
and 1.Nf3. It is usually followed by 2.Bg2, fianchettoing [1] Batsford’s Modern Chess Openings, 15th Edition (2008),
the bishop. Nick de Firmian writes that 1.g3 “can, and Nick De Firmian
usually does, transpose into almost any other opening in
[2] Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, Volume A, Fourth Edi-
which White fianchettos his king’s bishop”.[1] Included
tion. Chess Informant.
among these are the Catalan Opening, the King’s Indian
Attack and some variations of the English Opening. For [3] Gulam Kassim, Analysis of the Muzio Gambit and Match
this reason, the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has no of Two Games at Chess between Madras and Hyderabad,
specific code devoted to 1.g3. The move itself is classified Madras, 1829
256 CHAPTER 10. FLANK OPENINGS

[4] Mednis, Edmar (1994). How Karpov Wins. Courier
Dover Publications.
[5] Timman, Jan (2005). Curaçao 1962: The Battle of Minds
that Shook the Chess World. New in Chess. ISBN 978-90-
5691-139-3.
10.6.1 Continuations
The Black responses which are given one or more chap-
ters in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) are
given below, ranked in order of popularity.[8]

1...Nf6
10.5.4 References Like White’s move, Black’s move is non-committal as to
opening. 2. d4 is identical to 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 (see
• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox Queen’s Pawn Game). 2. c4 is a common start for the
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744- English Opening or it may be brought back to the Queen’s
285-4. Gambit Declined 2. g3 is a common start for the King’s
Indian Attack.

10.6 Zukertort Opening 1...d5

The Zukertort Opening is a chess opening named after Black stakes a claim to the center. White has many trans-
Johannes Zukertort that begins with the move: positional options. 2. d4 is again the same as 1. d4 d5 2.
Nf3 (see Queen’s Pawn Game). 2. g3 is the King’s Indian
Attack. 2. c4 is the Reti Opening or English Opening.
1. Nf3

1...c5
Sometimes the term "Réti Opening" is used to describe
the opening move 1.Nf3,[1] although most sources define Black invites White to play 2. e4, transitioning into the
the Réti more narrowly as the sequence 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4.[2] Sicilian Defense, or 2. c4, the Symmetrical Defense of
A flank opening, it is the third most popular of the twenty the English Opening.
legal opening moves White has, behind only 1.e4 and
1.d4.[3][4][5] 1...g6
The move has been described by Edmar Mednis as a “per-
fect and flexible opening”[6] and by others such as Aron White can play 2. c4 for the English Opening, 2. e4 for
Nimzowitsch as “certainly the most solid move, whereas the Sicilian Defense, 2. g3 for the King’s Indian Attack,
moves such as 1.e4 and 1.d4 are both 'committal' and or 2. d4 for the King’s Indian Defense.
'compromising'.”[7] The game can transpose into a large
number of other openings which usually start with 1.e4,
1.d4, or 1.c4. In most games, 1.Nf3 transposes into an- 1...f5
other opening. If Black is not careful, there is the risk
of running unprepared into a highly theoretical opening, After 1...f5, 2. d4 is the Dutch Defense. 2. e4 borrows
e.g. after 1.Nf3 c5 White can play 2.e4 leading to the ideas from the Staunton Gambit.
mainline Sicilian Defense. Other common transpositions
are to various lines of the Queen’s Gambit Declined (after
e.g. 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4) or the Catalan Opening (af-
10.6.2 See also
ter e.g. 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 e6 4.0-0 Be7 5.c4).[6]
• List of chess openings
The main independent lines which usually start with
1.Nf3 are the Réti Opening (1.Nf3 d5 2.c4) and the
King’s Indian Attack (where White plays 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 10.6.3 Further reading
3.Bg2, 4.0-0, and 5.d3, though not always in that order).
By playing 1.Nf3 White has prevented Black from play- • Djuric, Stefan (2010). Chess Opening Essentials,
ing 1...e5, and many players who want to play the English Volume 4- 1.Nf3. New in Chess. ISBN 978-90-
Opening but avoid the reversed Sicilian lines beginning 5691-308-3.
with 1.c4 e5 opt to start the game with 1.Nf3 instead.[6]
In the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Zukertort Open- 10.6.4 References
ings are classified in the coding series A04 - A09. 1...d5
is under A06-A09, 1...Nf6 is under A05, and any other [1] “Reti Opening (A04)". Chessgames.com. Retrieved
Black move is under A04. 2009-04-04.
10.7. RÉTI OPENING 257

[2] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992). The Oxford

Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0-19-280049-3.

[3] “Opening Explorer”. Chessgames.com. Retrieved 2009-

04-04.

[4] “Online Chess Database”. ChessBase. Retrieved 2009-

04-04.

[5] “Chess Opening Explorer”. 365chess.com. Retrieved

2009-04-04.

[6] Mednis, Edmar (June 1990). “Move orders in the open-

ing: The Modern Master’s Tool”. Chess Life. United
States Chess Federation: 14–16.

[7] Keene, Raymond (1999). Aron Nimzowitsch - Master of

Planning. Batsford. p. 170. ISBN 0-7134-8438-1.

[8] “Opening explorer for 1.Nf3”.

10.7 Réti Opening

The Réti Opening is a hypermodern chess opening
whose traditional or classic method begins with the
moves:

1. Nf3 d5 Scoresheet of Réti–Capablanca, New York 1924

2. c4
York tournament.[2] Alexander Alekhine played the Réti
White plans to bring the d5-pawn under attack from the in the 1920s, but at that time almost any game that began
flank, or entice it to advance to d4 and undermine it later.
with Nf3 and c4 by White was considered to be the Réti.
White will couple this plan with a kingside fianchetto (g3
Réti popularized these moves against all defenses in the
and Bg2) to create pressure on the light squares in the spirit of hypermodernism, and as the opening developed
center. it gained structure and a clearer distinction between it and
The opening is named after Richard Réti (1889–1929), other openings.
an untitled Grandmaster from Czechoslovakia. The Hans Kmoch called the system of attack employed by
opening is in the spirit of the hypermodernism movement Réti in the game Réti–Rubinstein, Carlsbad 1923,[3] “the
that Réti championed, with the center being dominated Réti Opening” or “the Réti System”. Savielly Tartakower
from the wings rather than by direct occupation. called the opening the “Réti–Zukertort Opening”, and
1.Nf3 develops the knight to a good square, prepares for said of 1.Nf3: “An opening of the past, which became,
quick castling, and prevents Black from occupying the towards 1923, the opening of the future.”[4]
center by 1...e5. White maintains flexibility by not com-
mitting to a particular central pawn structure, while wait-
ing to see what Black will do. But the Réti should not be 10.7.2 Classic method: 2.c4
thought of as a single opening sequence, and certainly not
a single opening move, but rather as an opening complex
In modern times the Réti refers only to the configuration
with many variations sharing common themes. Nf3 and c4 by White with ...d5 by Black, where White
In the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO), Réti fianchettos at least one bishop and does not play an early
Opening is classified as codes A04–A09. d4.[5]
After 2.c4 (ECO code A09), Black’s choices are:
10.7.1 History
• 2...e6 or 2...c6 (holding the d5-point)
According to Réti the opening was introduced into mas-
ter play in the early part of 1923.[1] Réti used the opening • 2...dxc4 (giving up the d5-point)
most famously to defeat José Raúl Capablanca, the reign-
ing World Chess Champion, in a game at the 1924 New • 2...d4 (pushing the pawn)
258 CHAPTER 10. FLANK OPENINGS

If Black takes the pawn, then in the same manner as the After 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6, White can play 5.d4 for
QGA, 3.e3 or 3.e4 regain the pawn with a slight advan- the Semi-Slav Defense.
tage to White—Black being left somewhat undeveloped.
3.Na3 and 3.Qa4+ are also good, and commonly played. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.d4 to
This variety of White options limits the popularity of
2...dxc4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3

However, White can play 5.b3 instead.

10.7.3 Transpositions
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 10.7.4 See also
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.O-O O-O
• Flank opening

After 2.c4 e6, White can play 3.d4 for the Queen’s Gam- • List of chess openings
bit Declined.
• List of chess openings named after people
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.d4 to • Zukertort Opening
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 • Réti Opening, King’s Indian Attack

3.g3 Nf6 is the Neo-Catalan Opening, also under English

(e.g. 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5). Here White can play 10.7.5 References
4.d4.
[1] Schiller, Eric (1988). How to Play the Réti. Coraopo-
lis, Pennsylvania: Chess Enterprises, Inc. ISBN 978-0-
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.d4 to 931462-78-8.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3
[2] Richard Reti vs Jose Raul Capablanca, New York 1924

After 4.Bg2, Black may play ...Be7 or ...dxc4. With move
4...Be7, White can then play 5.d4.
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.d4 to
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2
This goes to the Closed Catalan, avoiding Open Catalan
(except classical line).[5] Or else White can castle, then
Black probably castles as well.
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.O-O
O-O 6.d4 to
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 O-
O 6.O-O
[3] Richard Reti vs Akiba Rubinstein, Karlsbad 1923
[4] Tartakower, Savielly; du Mont, Julius (1975). 500 Mas-
ter Games of Chess (1952). Dover Publications. p. 636.
ISBN 0-486-23208-5.
[5] Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition, by Nick de Firmian,
ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7, p. 718
10.7.6 Further reading
• Dunnington, Angus (1998). Easy Guide to the Reti
Opening. Cadogan. ISBN 978-1-85744-518-3.
• Davies, Nigel (2004). The Dynamic Reti. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-352-3.

With 4...dxc4 to 4.Bg2, White’s most common move is

5.Qa4+, and this will not correspond to a 1.d4 line.
After 2.c4 c6, White can play 3.d4 for the Slav Defense.

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.d4 to

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3

After 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6, White can play 4.d4 for the Slav
Defense.

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.d4 to

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3
Chapter 11

Irregular Openings

11.1 Irregular chess opening a general and well known classification in preference to
arranging these peculiar débuts under separate and less
In chess, irregular opening is a traditional term for any familiar heads.” Under this heading, Staunton considers
opening considered unusual or unorthodox. In the early the French Defence, Sicilian Defence, Scandinavian De-
19th century it was used for any opening not beginning fence, Owen’s Defence, Dutch Defence, Benoni Defence,
with 1.e4 e5 (the Open Game) or 1.d4 d5 (the Closed Bird’s Opening and English Opening.[4]
Game). As opening theory has developed and openings
formerly considered “irregular” have become standard,
11.1.2 Examples
the term has been used less frequently.[1]
Unusual first moves by White
11.1.1 Usage of the term The vast majority of high level chess games begin with ei-
ther 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3 or 1.c4.[5] Also seen occasionally
While the term has frequently been used in chess litera- are 1.g3, 1.b3 and 1.f4. Other opening moves by White,
ture, its meaning has never been precise and has varied along with a few non-transposing lines beginning 1.g3,
between writers. are classified under the code “A00” by the Encyclopaedia
One of the earliest references to “irregular openings” in of Chess Openings and described as “uncommon” or
chess literature was made by William Lewis in his 1832 “irregular”.[6][7] Although they are classified under a sin-
work Second Series of Lessons on the Game of Chess. gle code, these openings are unrelated to each other.
Lewis classified openings under the headings "King’s The openings classified as A00 are:
Bishop’s Game" (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4), "King’s Knight’s Game"
(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3), "Queen’s Bishop’s Pawn Game" (1.e4 e5
• 1.a3 – Anderssen’s Opening
2.c3), "King’s Gambit" (1.e4 e5 2.f4), "Queen’s Gam-
bit" (1.d4 d5 2.c4) and “Irregular Openings” (all other • 1.a4 – Ware Opening
openings). Lewis comments that the irregular openings
are “seldom played, because they are generally dull and • 1.b4 – Sokolsky Opening, also known as the Polish
uninteresting”. Among the openings he analyzes under Opening or Orangutan Opening
this heading are the French Defence and English Open- • 1.c3 – Saragossa Opening
ing (both now considered standard), Bird’s Opening and
a few 1.d4 d5 lines without the Queen’s Gambit. Lewis • 1.d3 – Mieses Opening
assigns no names to these openings.[2]
• 1.e3 – Van 't Kruijs Opening
Carl Jaenisch, who was an early advocate of the French
and Sicilian defences, rejected this use of the term “ir- • 1.f3 – Barnes Opening, also known as Gedult’s
regular”, saying that openings should rather be classified Opening
as “correct”, “incorrect” or “hazardous”.[3] In The Chess-
• 1.g3 - King’s Fianchetto Opening or Benko’s Open-
Player’s Handbook (1847), for many years the standard
ing
English-language reference book on the game of chess,
Howard Staunton accepted Lewis’s overall classification • 1.g4 – Grob’s Attack
system while tacitly acknowledging Jaenisch’s objections.
He wrote “Those methods of commencing the game, in • 1.h3 – Clemenz Opening, or Basman’s Attack
which the first or second player moves other than (1.e4 • 1.h4 – Desprez Opening, or Kadas Opening
e5 or 1.d4 d5) are usually designated “Irregular”. With-
out assenting to the propriety of this distinction, I have • 1.Na3 – Durkin Opening, also known as Durkin’s
thought it advisable, for the sake of perspicuity, to adopt Attack or the Sodium Attack

259
260 CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS

• 1.Nc3 – Dunst Opening • Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). Unorthodox

Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company. ISBN
• 1.Nh3 – Amar Opening, also known as the Paris 0-02-016590-0.
Opening, Ammonia Opening, or Drunken Knight
Opening • Tamburro, Pete (August 2009). “A Brief Chess
Opening Glossary”. Chess Life for Kids: 8–9.
The Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack (1.b3, ECO code A01)
and Bird’s Opening (1.f4, ECO codes A02-A03) have
also been described as “irregular”, particularly in older 11.1.5 References
books.[8][4]
[1] Hooper & Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Ox-
ford University Press, 1996, p 182, “Irregular opening, in
Unusual responses by Black the early 19th century any opening that did not begin with
1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5. However, Jaenisch said, 'As this dis-
tinction is purely arbitrary, and unfounded on principle,
Openings in which Black makes an unconventional re-
we cannot ourselves adopt it. We distinguish all the open-
sponse to 1.e4 are classified as B00 (King’s Pawn ings as “correct”, or else as “incorrect” or “hazardous”.'
Game).[6] Included in this code are: Since then many so-called irregular openings have be-
come standard play. These and many other openings have
• 1.e4 a6 – St. George Defence acquired names and the term irregular opening has grad-
ually fallen into disuse.”
• 1.e4 b6 – Owen’s Defence
[2] William Lewis, Second Series of Lessons on the Game of
• 1.e4 f6 – Barnes Defence Chess, Simpkin & Marshall, London 1832

• 1.e4 h6 – Carr Defence [3] Carl Jaenisch,Jaenisch’s Chess Preceptor: A New Analy-
sis of the Openings of Game, Longman, Brown, Green &
• 1.e4 Na6 – Lemming Defence Longman, London, 1847 (original in French, St. Peters-
burg 1843)
• 1.e4 Nc6 – Nimzowitsch Defence
[4] Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player’s Handbook, Henry
• 1.e4 Nh6 – Adams Defence G. Bohn, London 1847
• 1.e4 a5 – Cornstalk Defence [5] Randy Olson, Popularity of chess openings over time,
ChessBase, 24 June 2014
• 1.e4 b5 – Polish Gambit
[6] “Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Classification Code
• 1.e4 f5 – Fred Defence
Index” (PDF). chessinformant. Retrieved 6 July 2016.
• 1.e4 g5 – Borg Defence [7] “A00-A99”. chessarch. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
• 1.e4 h5 – Goldsmith Defence [8] Savielly Tartakower & Jules Du Mont, 500 Master Games
of Chess, Dover, 1952, p651
Of these, 1...Nc6, 1...b6, 1...a6 and 1...g5 have received
the most theoretical attention.[9] Tony Miles famously [9] Nick de Firmian, Batsford’s Modern Chess Openings, 2014
used 1...a6 to defeat Anatoly Karpov.[10] [10] Les Bunning, Miles known for unorthodox style of play,
Ottawa Citizen, 28 June 1980

11.1.3 See also

• List of chess openings 11.2 Anderssen’s Opening
• Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
Anderssen’s Opening is a chess opening defined by the
opening move:
11.1.4 References
1. a3
Because these openings are not popular with chess play-
ers, the standard opening references (see chess opening Anderssen’s Opening is named after unofficial World
and Chess theory#Opening theory) do not cover them in Chess Champion Adolf Anderssen, who played it three
detail. times[1][2][3] in his 1858 match against Paul Morphy.
While Anderssen was defeated decisively in the match,
• Schiller, Eric (2003). Unorthodox Chess Openings. the games he opened with this novelty scored 1½/3 (one
Cardoza. ISBN 1-58042-072-9. win, one loss, one draw).
11.3. WARE OPENING 261

As Anderssen’s Opening is not commonly played, it is 11.2.4 See also

considered an irregular opening. The move is classified
under the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Open- • List of chess openings
ings.
• List of chess openings named after people

11.2.1 Discussion
11.2.5 References
This opening move does little for development or control
of the center. In some cases, White can transpose the Notes
game to an opening where 1.a3 might have been useful,
but using a tempo on such a move already on move one [1] Anderssen vs Morphy, Paris 1858
seems premature. In fact, this opening is based on the
[2] Anderssen vs Morphy, Paris 1858
idea that White is playing with the black pieces, but he
has the move 1.a3 already played. If a game starts 1.a3 [3] Anderssen vs Morphy, Paris 1858
e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3, Black cannot proceed in Ruy Lopez-
fashion, and if Black plays 3...Bc5, then 4.Nf3 puts Black [4] Dr. Zvonko Krecak games at ChessGames.com
into the Two Knights’ Defence and White’s a3 precludes
[5] Carlsen vs Ivanchuk, Nice 2010
many possibilities.
Anderssen’s Opening is not a very constructive move for Bibliography
White, more a waiting move. Some players may enjoy
the psychological value of such a move, however, or be-
lieve it will help them against an opponent with a superior • Angus Dunnington (2000). Winning Unorthodox
knowledge of opening theory. Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4.
Among the more common Black responses to Ander-
ssen’s Opening are: • Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
(Second ed.). Cardoza. p. 48. ISBN 1-58042-072-
• 1...d5, which makes a straightforward claim on the 9.
center;
• Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). Unorthodox
• 1...g6, which prepares to fianchetto the bishop to g7 Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company. ISBN
(since developing the bishop to b4 is unlikely) where 0-02-016590-0.
it puts pressure on the slightly weakened queenside
squares;
11.3 Ware Opening
• 1...e5 is also possible, but White can then play 2.c4,
leading to a kind of Sicilian Defence with colors
reversed, where a pawn on a3 can be useful. An- The Ware Opening (or Meadow Hay Opening) is an
other approach is 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3, transposing to uncommon chess opening for White beginning with the
Mengarini’s Opening. move:

11.2.2 Use
A modern proponent of the move is Croatian
International Master Dr. Zvonko Krecak.[4] In March
2010 the then world number one Magnus Carlsen
played the opening in the blindfold game against Vassily
Ivanchuk at the Amber chess tournament. Carlsen later
lost the game.[5]
11.2.3 Named variations
• 1.a3 g6 2.g4 (Andersspike)
• 1.a3 e5 2.h3 d5 (Creepy Crawly Formation)
• 1.a3 a5 2.b4 (Polish Gambit)
1. a4
It is named after U.S. chess player Preston Ware, who of-
ten played uncommon openings. The Ware is considered
an irregular opening, so it is classified under the A00 code
in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.
11.3.1 Opening idea
The Ware Opening attacks the b5-square and prepares to
bring the a1-rook into the game. The b5-square is non-
essential and if Black plays 1...e5, the f8-bishop prevents
the development of the white rook for the moment. The
reply 1...e5 also gains space for Black in the center, a typ-
ical objective of most openings but one completely ig-
nored by the Ware Opening. Noting all this, the Ware
262 CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS

Opening is normally seen played only by players com- • Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
pletely new to chess. Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
An experienced player using the Ware Opening will usu- 285-4.
ally meet a response of 1...d5 or 1...e5 with 2.d4 or 2.e4,
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
respectively, since a reversed Scandinavian or Englund
(Second ed.). Cardoza. pp. 506–508. ISBN 1-
Gambit would be unsound here. At some later point the
58042-072-9.
move a5 will be played, followed by Ra4 (as Ra3?? in-
vites ...Bxa3 Nxa3 with a definite advantage for Black).
In the 2012 World Blitz Championship, 1.a4 was em-
ployed as a little joke by Magnus Carlsen against Teimour
11.4 Sokolsky Opening
Radjabov, who during the blitz championship two years
earlier had told him “Everyone is getting tired. You might The Sokolsky Opening (also known as the Orangutan
as well start with 1.a4 and you can still beat them.” The or Polish) is an uncommon chess opening that begins
game soon turned into a sort of Four Knights Game where with the move:
Carlsen finally prevailed.[1]
1. b4
11.3.2 Variations
According to various databases, out of the twenty possi-
There are several named variations of the Ware Opening. ble first moves from White, the move 1.b4 ranks ninth in
The best known of these are: popularity.[1] It is considered an irregular opening, so it
is classified under the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia of
Chess Openings (ECO).
• 1...e5 2.h4 – the Crab Variation. This does nothing
to help White, but instead weakens his position even
more.
11.4.1 Details
• 1...e5 2.a5 d5 3.e3 f5 4.a6 – the Ware Gambit.
The opening has never been popular at the top level,
• 1...b6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nd7 – the Cologne Gambit. though a number of prominent players have employed it
on occasion (for example, Richard Réti against Abraham
• 1...b5 2.axb5 Bb7 – the Wing Gambit of the Ware Speijer in Scheveningen 1923 and Boris Spassky against
Opening. Vasily Smyslov in the 1960 Moscow–Leningrad match).
Soviet player Alexei Pavlovich Sokolsky (1908–69) wrote
• 1...a5 – the rarely seen Symmetric Variation. a monograph on this opening in 1963, Debyut 1 b2–b4.
Perhaps its most famous use came in the game
11.3.3 See also Tartakower versus Maróczy, in the New York 1924 chess
tournament on March 21, 1924.[2] The name “Orangutan
• Corn Stalk Defense – sometimes known as the Opening” originates from that game: the players visited
“Ware Defense” the Bronx Zoo the previous day, where Tartakower con-
sulted an orangutan named Susan, and she somehow indi-
• Preston Ware cated, Tartakower insisted, that he should open with b4.
Also Tartakower noted that the climbing movement of the
• List of chess openings pawn to b5 reminded him of the orangutan. In that par-
ticular game, Tartakower came out of the opening with a
• List of chess openings named after people decent position, but the game was drawn.[3][4] Alekhine,
who played in the tournament and wrote a book on it, said
that 1.b4 was an old move, and that the problem is that
11.3.4 Notes it reveals White’s intentions, before White knows what
Black’s intentions are.[5]
[1] “Grischuk wins 2nd World Blitz title in Astana”.
The opening is largely based upon tactics on the queenside
ChessVibes. 10 July 2012. Retrieved 11 July 2012.
or the f6- and g7-squares. Black can respond in a vari-
ety of ways: For example, Black can make a claim on
11.3.5 References the centre (which White’s first move ignores) with 1...d5
(possibly followed by 2.Bb2 Qd6, attacking b4 and sup-
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox- porting e7–e5),[6] 1...e5 or 1...f5. Less ambitious moves
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN like 1...Nf6, 1...c6 (called the Outflank Variation, prepar-
0-19-280049-3. ing ...Qb6 or ...a5), and 1...e6 are also reasonable. Rarer
11.5. SARAGOSSA OPENING
attempts have been made with 1...a5 or 1...c5. Black’s re- [6] Martin, Andrew (2004). “How To Meet The Polish &
ply 1...e6 is usually followed by ...d5, ...Nf6 and an even-
tual ...c5. After 1.b4 e5 it is normal for White to ignore
the attack on the b-pawn and play 2.Bb2, when 2...d6,
2...f6, and 2...Bxb4 are all playable. After 1...a5 White
will most likely play 2.b5 and take advantage of Black’s
queenside weakness. Black’s 1...c5 is much sharper and
more aggressive and is normally used to avoid theory. Af-
ter the capture Black will generally place pressure on the
c5-square and will develop an attack against White’s weak
queenside structure.
11.4.2 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
11.4.3 Named Variations
• 1...c5 (Birmingham Gambit)
• 1...c6 (Outflank Variation)
• 1...c6 2.Bb2 a5 3.b5 cxb5 4.e4 (Schuhler Gambit)
• 1...d5 2.Bb2 c6 3.a4 (Myers Variation)
• 1...e5 2.a3 (Bugayev Attack)
• 1...e5 2.Bb2 c5 (Wolferts Gambit)
• 1...e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bxb4 (Tartakower Gambit)
• 1...e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bxb4 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.f4 Qe7 6.f5
g6 (Brinckmann Variation)
• 1...Na6 (Bucker Defense Kingsley Variation)
• 1...Nc6 (Grigorian Variation)
• 1...Nf6 2.Bb2 g6 3.g4 (Polish Spike)
• 1...Nh6 (Karniewski Variation)
11.4.4 References
Notes
[1] See for example ChessBase, 365chess opening explorer,
and ChessGames.com opening explorer
[2] “Savielly Tartakower vs Geza Maroczy”. Chess-
games.com. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
[3] Weinreb, Michael. “Kings of New York”. Gotham
Books. 2007
[4] Danelishen, Gary; M. “The Final Theory of Chess”.
Phillidore Press 2008 ISBN 978-0981567709
[5] Alekhine, Alexander. “New York 1924”. Russell Enter-
prises, Inc. 2009 p. 64 ISBN 978-1888690484
263
Grob”. www.jeremysilman.com.
Bibliography
• Hooper, David; Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Oxford
Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN 0-
19-280049-3.
• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4.
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
(Second ed.). Cardoza. ISBN 1-58042-072-9. p.
354-357
• Yury Lapshun; Nick Conticello (2008). Play 1b4!:
Shock your opponents with the Sokolsky. Everyman
Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-560-2.
• Jerzy Konikowski und Marek Soszynski: The Sokol-
sky Opening 1.b4 in Theory & Practice. Russell En-
terprises, Milford USA 2009, ISBN 978-1-888690-
65-1
11.4.5 External links
• ECO A00: Polish (Sokolsky) opening
• 1. b4 variations and games by Marek Trokenheim
(Marek’s 1.b4 Encyclopaedia)
• Sokolsky
• Opening Report. Birmingham Gambit: 1.b4 c5
(148 games)
• Opening Report. Tartakower Gambit: 1.b4 e5
2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bxb4 (783 games)
11.5 Saragossa Opening
The Saragossa Opening (or Hempel’s Opening) is a
chess opening defined by the opening move:
1. c3
Since White usually plays more aggressively in the open-
ing, the Saragossa is considered an irregular opening,
classified as A00 by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Open-
ings.
264 CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS

11.5.1 History • List of chess openings named after places

This opening became popular in the Saragossa chess club

(Zaragoza, Spain) in 1919. The next year club member 11.5.4 Notes
José Juncosa analyzed the opening in Revista del Club
Argentino.[1] In 1922 a theme tournament requiring the [1] Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 354
players to open with 1.c3 was arranged in Mannheim with
three participants, Siegbert Tarrasch, Paul Leonhardt and 11.5.5 References
Jacques Mieses, which Tarrasch won.
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess (2 ed.), Oxford University
11.5.2 Basics Press, p. 354, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
The opening of 1.c3 seems at first to be an unambitious • Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
move. It opens a diagonal for the queen, but it makes only Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
a timid claim to the center. It prepares to play d4, but 285-4.
White could simply have played that move immediately.
Also, the pawn on c3 has the apparent disadvantage of • Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
taking the c3-square away from the knight. (Second ed.). Cardoza. p. 329. ISBN 1-58042-
072-9.
It is not a terrible move, however, because it is likely
to transpose to many solid systems, including a reversed
Caro-Kann Defence or Slav Defense (but with an extra 11.5.6 External links
tempo for White); the Exchange Variation of the Queen’s
Gambit Declined, after 1.c3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.cxd4 d5; to a • 825 Games at Chess.com
solid but passive type of Queen’s Pawn Game after 1.c3
Nf6 2.d4 or 1.c3 d5 2.d4; or to a reversed Scandinavian
Defense after 1.c3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4!? Nc6 4.Qa4; as 11.6 Mieses Opening
well as the Ponziani and Center Game openings, to name
just a few.
The Mieses Opening is a chess opening that begins with
Black has a number of responses, the most common (and the move:
effective) being 1...d5, 1...e5, and 1...Nf6. After 1...d5,
White can essay the Plano Gambit, 2.e4?!, in effect an 1. d3
unusual response to the Scandinavian Defense. After
2...dxe4, 3.Qa4+ recovers the pawn, but Black gets quick
The opening is named after the German-British
development with 3...Nc6 4.Qxe4 Nf6 5.Qc2 e5. Also
grandmaster Jacques Mieses. It is considered an
reasonable is 1...f5, when 2.d4 transposes to a Dutch De-
irregular opening, so it is classified under the A00 code
fense where White has played the passive move c3.
in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO).
The reply 1...c5 is also playable, but gives White more
opportunity than other moves to transpose to standard
openings where he may have a small advantage. The 11.6.1 Description
move 1...c5 2.e4 transposes to the Alapin Variation of
the Sicilian Defence. The sequence 1...c5 2.d4 is also White’s 1.d3 releases his c1-bishop and makes a modest
possible, when 2...cxd4 (2...e6 3.e4 d5, transposing to claim for the centre, but since it does not stake out as
a French Defence after 4.e5 or 4.exd5, is also possible) large a share of the centre as 1.d4 does, it is not a pop-
3.cxd4 d5 transposes to a regular Exchange Variation of ular opening move. Of the twenty possible first moves
the Slav Defense (usually reached by 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 for White, it ranks tenth in popularity. Nevertheless,
3.cxd5 cxd5), which gives White a slight advantage. since 1...d6 is playable by Black against any opening move
from White,[1] it is playable by White as well. Black has
The move 1...Nc6 is also possible, as it transposes to the
many reasonable responses, such as 1...e5, 1...d5, 1...c5,
1.Nc3 system (with colors reversed), where Black em-
1...Nf6, and 1...g6.
barked on a rather dubious plan with c6 and d5. After
2.d4 d5, Black seems to be holding the admittedly un- The most famous use of this opening was in the fourth
usual position without particular difficulties. game in the Deep Blue versus Gary Kasparov match in
1997.[2] Kasparov believed that the computer would play
the opening poorly if it had to rely on its own skills rather
11.5.3 See also than on its opening book. The game was drawn.[3] It
had been previously used by David Levy in a prize match
• List of chess openings against Cray Blitz, where White won.[4]
11.7. VAN 'T KRUIJS OPENING
11.6.2 Illustrative game
Position after 29...Nc6
Garry Kasparov–Deep Blue, game 4, May 1997[5]
1.d3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Nf6 4.a3 d6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.g3
0-0 7.Bg2 Be6 8.0-0 Qd7 9.Ng5 Bf5 10.e4 Bg4 11.f3
Bh5 12.Nh3 Nd4 13.Nf2 h6 14.Be3 c5 15.b4 b6 16.Rb1
Kh8 17.Rb2 a6 18.bxc5 bxc5 19.Bh3 Qc7 20.Bg4 Bg6
21.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 Qa5 23.Bd2 Qxa3 24.Ra2 Qb3 25.f5
Qxd1 26.Bxd1 Bh7 27.Nh3 Rfb8 28.Nf4 Bd8 29.Nfd5
Nc6 (see diagram) 30.Bf4 Ne5 31.Ba4 Nxd5 32.Nxd5 a5
33.Bb5 Ra7 34.Kg2 g5 35.Bxe5+ dxe5 36.f6 Bg6 37.h4
gxh4 38.Kh3 Kg8 39.Kxh4 Kh7 40.Kg4 Bc7 41.Nxc7
Rxc7 42.Rxa5 Rd8 43.Rf3 Kh8 44.Kh4 Kg8 45.Ra3 Kh8
46.Ra6 Kh7 47.Ra3 Kh8 48.Ra6 ½–½
11.6.3 Named Variations
1.d3 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 is the Venezolana. 1.d3 e5 is the take more than a modest stake of the centre.
Reversed Rat. 1.d3 g6 2.g4 is the Spike Deferred or the
Myers Spike Attack.
11.6.4 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
11.6.5 References
[1] The book An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black
is devoted to giving “Black a complete opening repertoire
with the opening move 1...d6.” Jouni Yrjola and Jussi
Tella, An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black,
Gambit Publications Ltd., 2001, p. 6. ISBN 1-901983-
50-1.
[2] (www.chessbase.com)
[3] Chess Life, Special Summer Issue 1997.
[4] Need 4 games Cray Blitz-Levy 1984 Computer Chess
Club archives at stmintz.com
[5] (www.chesscorner.com)
Bibliography
• Angus Dunnington (2000). Winning Unorthodox
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4.
• David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford Univer-
sity. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). Unorthodox
Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company. pp.
10–11. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.
265
11.7 Van 't Kruijs Opening
The Van't Kruijs[1] Opening (Dutch pronunciation: [vɑn
ət ˈkrœys]) is a chess opening defined by the move:
1. e3
It is named after the Amsterdam player Maarten van't
Kruijs (1813–85) who won the sixth Dutch championship
in 1878. As this opening move is rarely played, it is con-
sidered an irregular opening, and thus it is classified under
the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
(ECO).
The opening 1.e3 is not popular according to ChessBase;
it ranks eleventh in popularity out of the twenty possible
first moves. It releases the king’s bishop, and makes a
modest claim of the centre, but the move is somewhat
passive. The queen’s bishop’s development is somewhat
hindered by the pawn on e3, and White usually wants to
Although not very aggressive for a first move, play
may transpose to lines of the English Opening (c2–c4),
Queen’s Pawn Game (d2–d4), or reversed French De-
fence (delayed d2–d4) or reversed Dutch Defence (f2–
f4) positions.
The Van't Kruijs Opening is not a common choice for
grandmasters, but its ability to transpose into many dif-
ferent openings explains its attraction for some people
such as the Czech grandmaster Pavel Blatny, Aron Nim-
zowitsch,[2] and Bent Larsen. Garry Kasparov has used
the move against the Fritz chess engine to get it “out of
book”.
11.7.1 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
11.7.2 References
[1] Also spelled Van't Kruys.
[2] Aron Nimzowitsch playing 1.e3 at Chessgames.com
11.7.3 Further reading
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4.
266 CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS

11.7.4 External links If Black replies 1...e5, the game might proceed into a pas-
sive line known as the Blue Moon Defence. It usually oc-
• Interactive chessboard showing the Amsterdam At- curs after the moves 1.f3 e5 2.Nh3 d5 3.Nf2 (avoiding
tack variation 3...Bxh3 4.gxh3 weakening the kingside) Nf6 4.e3 Nc6
5.Be2 Bc5 6.0-0 0-0. White has no stake in the center,
• Short biography of Maarten van't Kruijs
but hopes to make a hole to break into.
• The chess games of Maarten Van't Kruijs If White plays poorly and leaves too many lines open
against his king after 2.Kf2, he might be quickly check-
mated. One example: 1.f3 d5 2.Kf2 e5 (Black places two
11.8 Barnes Opening pawns in the center to prepare for quick development)
3.e4 Bc5+ 4.Kg3 Qg5#.
Barnes Opening (or Gedult’s Opening) is a chess open-
ing where White opens with:
11.8.2 Fool’s Mate
1. f3
Barnes Opening can lead to Fool’s mate, 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4
The opening is named after Thomas Wilson Barnes mate. Of all of White’s legal moves on his second move,
(1825–74), an English player who had an impressive only one allows mate in one, while another, 2.h3, allows
eight wins over Paul Morphy, including one game where mate in two.
Barnes answered 1.e4 with 1...f6, known as Barnes De-
fense.
11.8.3 A transposition
It is considered an irregular opening, so it is classified un-
der the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings David Gedult, a cult hero of the Blackmar-Diemer Gam-
(ECO). bit community, often played 1.f3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3.
This is sometimes called the Gedult Opening. Play often
transposes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit proper, with
11.8.1 Strategy 3...exf3 4.Nxf3 Nf6 5.d4.

Of the twenty possible first moves in chess, author

and grandmaster Edmar Mednis argues that 1.f3 is the 11.8.4 See also
worst.[1] The move does exert influence over the central
square e4, but the same or more ambitious goals can be • Fool’s Mate
achieved with almost any other first move. The move 1.f3
• Barnes Defense
does not develop a piece, opens no lines for pieces, and
actually hinders the development of White’s king knight • List of chess openings
by denying it its most natural square, f3. It also weak-
ens White’s kingside pawn structure, opens the e1–h4 • List of chess openings named after people
diagonal against White’s uncastled king, and opens the
g1–a7 diagonal against White’s potential kingside castling
position.[2] 11.8.5 References
Since 1.f3 is a poor move, it is not played often. Nonethe- Notes
less, it is probably not the rarest opening move. After
1.f3 e5 some players even continue with the nonsensi- [1]
cal 2.Kf2, which is sometimes called the Fried Fox At-
tack, Wandering King Opening, The Hammerschlag, [2] Larsen, Bent (1977). Lærebok i sjakk. Dreyer. ISBN 82-
Tumbleweed, the Pork Chop Opening, or the Half 09-01480-3.
Bird as it is often called in the United Kingdom, due to its [3] Opening Lanes Garry Lane, Chesscafe.com
opening move f3 being half that of the f4 employed in the
Bird Opening. One example of this is the game Simon
Bibliography
Williams versus Martin Simons in the last round of the
British Championship 1999, where Williams had noth-
ing to play for.[3] Also played is 2.e4, called the King’s • Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
Head Opening. ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3. OCLC 34618196.
Despite its obvious deficiencies, 1.f3 does not lose the
game for White. Black can secure a comfortable advan- • Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
tage by the normal means – advancing central pawns and Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
rapidly developing pieces to assert control over the center. 285-4. OCLC 44556403.
11.9. GROB’S ATTACK 267

• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings After 1. g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4!? 3.c4
(Second ed.). Cardoza. p. 51. ISBN 1-58042-072- After 3.c4 d4 4.Bxb7 Nd7
9. OCLC 51747780. Romford Countergambit, after 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3 d3!

• Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). Unorthodox

Black is not obliged to give White these opportunities.
Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company. ISBN
After 1...e5, Black can take aim at the h4-square, left
0-02-016590-0.
weak by White’s pawn advance. 2.Bg2 h5 will force a
weakening of White’s pawn structure. 2.d3 (intending
to answer 2...h5 with 3.g5) or 2.h3 can be answered by
11.9 Grob’s Attack 2...Ne7 with the threat of ...Ng6 followed by ...Nf4 or
...Nh4, disrupting White’s kingside fianchetto. (Martin
Grob’s Attack is an unconventional chess opening where 2004)
White immediately moves the king knight’s pawn two The Keene defense, reached through the moves 1. g4 d5
squares ahead: 2. h3 e5 3. Bg2 c6.

1. g4 Another frequently used setup for White in the Grob is 1.

g4, 2. h3, and 3. Bg2. A Black counter-setup might be
1... d5, 2... e5, and 3... c6 (these moves may be played in
11.9.1 Discussion any order), which, if used in conjunction with an eventual
...e4, negates White’s King’s Bishop’s influence over the
The opening takes its name from Swiss International Mas- center.
ter Henri Grob (1904–1974) who analyzed it extensively A key element of the Grob is deploying the king’s bishop
and played hundreds of correspondence games with it. on g2 and having it rule the diagonal. In order to further
In Grob’s newspaper column analysis of this opening, this goal, White must keep the center clear of pawns. This
he referred to it as the Spike Opening, a name which leads to frequent “tearing at the center” with c4 often be-
still enjoys limited usage. Other early references used ing White’s third move.
the name Ahlhausen’s Opening, after Carl Ahlhausen
(1835–1892) of Berlin, one of the first to play 1.g4. Due to the unusual pawn structure White attains by play-
Savielly Tartakower sometimes played this opening in ing g4 and c4 so early in the game, there is frequently lit-
simultaneous exhibitions and called it the Genoa or San tle advantage to castling. Play often devolves into a wild
Pier D'Arena Opening, after the city and suburb of and wide-open game, with a definitive advantage usually
Genoa where he first used it. In the Czech Republic and resolving itself in the first 20 moves.
Slovakia 1.g4 is called Fric’s Opening, and in other parts In response to Grob’s Attack, Black may advance the
of the world it is called Kolibri’s Opening. king’s pawn. Good responses would be 2.Bg2 (dominat-
It is considered an irregular opening, so it is classified un- ing the light-squared center diagonal) or c4, the English
der the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Open- Variation, preparing Nc3 to solidify White’s control of
ings. d5.
The Grob is generally considered inferior and is usually
not employed in serious competition. International Mas-
11.9.2 See also
ter John Watson writes, “As far as I can tell, 1 g4 is com-
petitive with 1 h4 for the honour of being White’s worst
• List of chess openings
first move. Against an informed or skilled opponent, it is
simply masochistic.”[1] • List of chess openings named after people
Nonetheless, International Master Michael Basman and
Grandmaster Spyridon Skembris are advocates of the
opening. It has a certain surprise value, and the average 11.9.3 Notes
player is unlikely to know how to refute it and more likely
to get overconfident and make mistakes. Moreover, the [1] John Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4,
lack of theory along this line may negate the repertoire Gambit Publications, 2010, p. 275. ISBN 978-1-906454-
of an experienced opponent. Intuitive play by White can 19-7.
lead Black into dangerous traps. Many of these traps rely
on Black’s replying with 1...d5, attacking the pawn with
his queen’s bishop. After 2.Bg2 Bxg4!?, White has an 11.9.4 References
attack after 3.c4 and eventually Qb3, aiming at the weak-
ened squares d5 and b7, an attack that may well be worth • Michael Basman (1991). The Killer Grob. Cadogan.
a pawn. ISBN 0-08-037131-0.
268 CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS

• Bill Wall (1988). Grob’s Attack. Chess Enterprises. 11.10.2 See also
ISBN 0-931462-86-X.
• List of chess openings
• Angus Dunnington (2000). Winning Unorthodox
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744- • List of chess openings named after people
285-4.

• p. 201-210 Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess 11.10.3 References

Openings (Second ed.). Cardoza. ISBN 1-58042-
072-9.
• Claude Bloodgood (1976). The Tactical Grob.
Chess. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
11.9.5 External links
• Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). Unorthodox
Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company. pp.
102–03. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The
Oxford Companion To Chess. Oxford University.
ISBN 0-19-280049-3.

• Martin, Andrew (2004). “How To Meet The Polish • Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
& Grob”. www.jeremysilman.com. Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4.
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
11.10 Clemenz Opening (Second ed.). Cardoza. p. 108. ISBN 1-58042-
072-9.
The Clemenz Opening is a chess opening beginning with
the move:
11.11 Desprez Opening
1. h3
The Desprez Opening is a chess opening characterized
This opening is named after Hermann Clemenz (1846– by the opening move:
1908), an Estonian player. It is considered an irregular
opening, and is classified under the code A00 (miscella- 1. h4
neous first moves by White) in the Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings. The opening is named after the French player Marcel De-
sprez. Like a number of other rare openings, 1.h4 has
some alternate names such as “Kadas Opening”, “Anti-
11.10.1 Discussion Borg Opening”, "Samurai Opening”, and “Reagan’s
Attack”. Gabor Kadas is a Hungarian player. Accord-
Like Anderssen’s Opening, 1.a3, 1.h3 is a time-wasting ing to Eric Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings, the last
move, as it makes no claim on the central squares, nor name is because 1.h4 is “thoroughly unmotivated and cre-
does it aid development. It also leads to a slight weaken- ates weaknesses with only vague promises of future po-
ing of White’s kingside, albeit not as severely as Grob’s tential”, a political gibe against Ronald Reagan.
Attack (1.g4) or Barnes Opening (1.f3). Since there is no
need for White to make such a time-wasting first move, As the Desprez Opening is very rare, it is considered an
it is among the rarest of the 20 possible first moves. Nev- irregular opening, so it is classified under the A00 code
ertheless, IM Michael Basman has experimented with in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.
1.h3, usually following it up with 2.g4 (transposing to the
Grob), or 2.a3 followed by a quick c2–c4, a line that has
11.11.1 Assessment
been dubbed the “Creepy Crawly”.
Black has a number of playable responses, the most com- Like 1.a4, the Ware Opening, 1.h4 is an irrelevant pawn
mon being 1...d5 and 1...e5, which stake out a claim for move which does nothing in the fight over central space,
central space. Another response, 1...b6 (or even 1...b5),and does very little for development. The only piece re-
intends to fianchetto a bishop to pressure White’s weak- leased is the rook, and this piece is usually not developed
ened pawns, and forestall a White kingside expansion by moving it to h3. In addition, 1.h4 weakens White’s
with g2–g4. kingside. For all of these reasons, 1.h4 is among the rarest
1...f5 is probably not Black’s best reply to 1.h3, since of the twenty possible first moves for White.
White can then play 2.d4, transposing to a sharp line Black usually responds by grabbing the center with 1...d5
against the Dutch Defense once tried by Viktor Korch- or 1...e5, and simple and sound development by 1...Nf6
noi. is also possible. However, 1...g6, intending to fianchetto
11.13. DUNST OPENING 269

Black’s bishop on g7, is rare because White can under- is White’s plan, it is stronger to play 1.c4 (the English
mine Black’s pawn structure with 2.h5, making 1.h4 seem Opening). As such, this opening is probably most valu-
like a logical move. able as a way to avoid opening preparation. On the other
Grandmaster David Bronstein once remarked that he hand, there are better ways to avoid an opponent’s open-
knew of a Russian player who always opened 1.h4 and ing preparation, for example by developing the b1-knight
always won. His point was that after 1. ...e5 2.g3 d5 to c3.
3.d4! exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd1 Nf6 6.Nh3! Be7 7.Nf4
0-0 8.Bg2 the f4 knight is well placed and White has a 11.12.2 See also
good position.[1] However, Black does not have to be so
cooperative. • List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
11.11.2 See also
• List of chess openings 11.12.3 References
• List of chess openings named after people • Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld. “Durkin Open-
ing.” Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992. 117.
11.11.3 Notes
• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
[1] McDonald, Neil (2001). Concise Chess Openings. Every- Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
man. p. 301. ISBN 1-85744-297-0. 285-4.
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
11.11.4 References (Second ed.). Cardoza. p. 454. ISBN 1-58042-
072-9.
• Eric Schiller (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
(Second ed.). Cardoza. ISBN 1-58042-072-9. p. • Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). “Durkin At-
237 tack”. Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publishing
Company. pp. 103–04. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.
• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4. 11.13 Dunst Opening
The Dunst Opening is a chess opening where White
11.12 Durkin Opening opens with the move:

The Durkin Opening (also known as the Durkin Attack 1. Nc3

or the Sodium Attack) is a rarely played chess opening
beginning with the move:
This fairly uncommon opening may have more names
than any other: it is also called the Heinrichsen Open-
1. Na3 ing, Baltic Opening, van Geet’s Opening, Sleipnir
Opening, Kotrč's Opening, Meštrović Opening, Ro-
The Durkin Opening is named for Robert James Durkin manian Opening, Queen’s Knight Attack, Queen’s
(1923–?) of New Jersey. The name “Sodium Attack” Knight Opening, Millard’s Opening, Knight on the
(used by Eric Schiller in Unorthodox Chess Openings) Left, and (in German) der Linksspringer.
comes from the algebraic notation 1.Na3, as Na is the
chemical symbol for the element sodium.
11.13.1 Origin of names
11.12.1 Assessment The names Heinrichsen and Baltic derive from
Lithuanian chess player Arved Heinrichsen (1876–
This awkward development of the queen’s knight does lit- 1900). The opening was analyzed and played by the
tle to utilize White’s advantage of the first move. From a3 New York master Ted A. Dunst (April 11, 1907 New
the knight does not influence the center or possess much York City – December 18, 1985 Lambertville, New
activity. It is likely that White will move this knight again Jersey), giving the opening its most popular name in
soon, perhaps by playing c4 and either recapturing on c4 the United States. The Dutch International Master and
(e.g. 1...d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nxc4) or playing Nc2. If this correspondence grandmaster Dirk Daniel (“Dick D.”)
270
van Geet (March 1, 1932 – April 29, 2012) frequently
played 1.Nc3, so it is often called the van Geet’s Opening
in the Netherlands. The appellation Sleipnir seems
to come from Germany. Sleipnir is Odin's (Wotan in
German) magical eight-legged horse, and chess knights
are horses with up to eight different possible moves
each turn. Czech Jan Kotrč (1862–1943), editor and
publisher of the magazine České Listy, said the opening
was analyzed by English players. Zvonimir Meštrović
(b. October 17, 1944) is a Slovenian International
Master who often adopts this opening. Tim Harding
refers to it as the “Queen’s Knight Attack” (Harding
1974:8). National Master Hugh Myers called it “Mil-
lard’s Opening” after Henry Millard (1824–91), a blind
correspondence chess player who drew with the opening
in a simultaneous exhibition against Joseph Henry Black-
burne. Blackburne later played the opening himself
against Josef Noa in the London 1883 international chess
tournament (Myers 2002:24–25).[1] The German FIDE
Master Harald Keilhack in his 2005 book on the opening
states that it has also been referred to as the Romanian
Defense, and that he prefers the neutral appellation “Der
Linksspringer” or, in English, “the Knight on the Left”
(Keilhack 2005:7).
11.13.2 General remarks
The opening move 1.Nc3 develops the knight to a good
square where it attacks the central e4 and d5 squares.
Although quite playable, 1.Nc3 is rarely seen; it is
only the eighth most popular of the 20 possible first
moves, behind 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.g3, 1.f4, and
1.b3. As of February 6, 2009, out of the over 500,000
games in ChessGames.com's database, only 644—about
1 out of every 780—begins with 1.Nc3.[2] The third-
ranking 1.Nf3 is 66 times as popular.[2] Some very strong
correspondence chess players employ 1.Nc3 frequently,
and it is occasionally seen over-the-board.
The reasons for 1.Nc3’s lack of popularity are that it
does not stop Black from occupying the center (while
1.Nf3 prevents 1...e5, 1.Nc3 does not prevent 1...d5 be-
cause the d-pawn is guarded by the queen), and it blocks
White’s c-pawn from moving, thus making it impossi-
ble to play c3 or c4 (which are often desirable moves)
without moving the knight first. In addition, after 1...d5,
the knight’s position is unstable because Black may at-
tack it with ...d4. Although 1.Nc3 develops a piece
to a good square (unlike 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3), and does
not weaken White’s position (unlike, e.g., 1.g4 or 1.f3)
or waste time (unlike, e.g., 1. c3), the above-stated
drawbacks make it an inferior way of attempting to ex-
ploit White’s first-move advantage. Of the 644 games
with 1.Nc3 in ChessGames.com's database, White won
34.8%, drew 23.9%, and lost 41.3%, for a total winning
percentage of only 46.75%.[2][3] White scores much bet-
ter with the more popular 1.e4 (54.25%), 1.d4 (55.95%),
1.Nf3 (55.8%), 1.c4 (56.3%), and 1.g3 (55.8%).[2]
CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS
11.13.3 Possible continuations
1...d5
This is one of Black’s best replies, occupying the cen-
ter and underscoring the unsettled position of White’s
knight. White can prevent 2...d4 by playing 2.d4 himself,
but he then obtains a somewhat inflexible position in the
Queen’s Pawn Game with his knight blocking the c-pawn
(Kaufman 2004:469, 473). Also possible is 2.Nf3 (and if
2...d4, 3.Ne4), a sort of Black Knights’ Tango with an ex-
tra move (Harding 1974:10). A third line is 2.e3, which
Keilhack calls “the Müller game,” when White hopes for
2...e5 (other moves are also playable, of course) 3.Qh5!?,
e.g. 3...Nc6 4.Bb5 Qd6 5.d4 exd4 6.exd4 Nf6 7.Qe5+!
Be6?! (Keilhack recommends 7...Kd8!! 8.Bxc6 bxc6
9.Nf3 Bg4) 8.Bf4 0-0-0 9.Bxc6 Qxc6? 10.Nb5!, when
White wins at least a pawn (Keilhack 2005:307–11).
White’s most common response to 1...d5 is 2.e4. This is
the same position as 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3, an obscure branch
of the Scandinavian Defense. Black has five plausi-
ble responses to 2.e4: 2...e6 and 2...c6 transpose to the
French and Caro–Kann Defenses, and 2...Nf6 to a varia-
tion of Alekhine’s Defence. The move 2...d4 gives Black
a spatial advantage, which White may work to undermine
along the lines of hypermodernism. Keilhack writes,
“2...d4 is chosen either by somewhat naive players who
are attracted by the fact that Black wins time and space ...
or by strong players who are aware of the strategic risks
but are striving for a complex battle.” (Keilhack 2005:44)
He considers the Van Geet Attack, 2...d4 3.Nce2 fol-
lowed by Ng3, to be “the core of the 1.Nc3 opening,”
“a fully independent entity which strives for early knight
activity on the kingside,” usually with Ng3, Nf3, Bc4 or
Bb5, 0-0, and d3 (Keilhack 2005:44). Alternative lines
for White include the unusual 3.Nb1!?, with which van
Geet once drew Spassky, and, after 3.Nce2, playing a sort
of King’s Indian Attack with d3, g3, Bg2, f4, Nf3, and 0-
0 – a line Keilhack calls the “Lizard Attack” (Keilhack
2005:125).
The fifth alternative, 1...d5 2.e4 dxe4, leads to more open
play. After 3.Nxe4, Black has a number of playable
moves, including 3...e5, 3...Nc6, 3...Bf5, 3...Nd7,
3...Nf6, and even 3...Qd5!?, when 4.Nc3 transposes to
the Scandinavian Defense (Keilhack 2005:131, 144, 146,
158, 172, 176). After 3...e5, White’s thematic move is
4.Bc4, when several of Black’s plausible moves lead to
disaster, e.g. 4...Be7? 5.Qh5! and White wins at least
a pawn after 5...g6 6.Qxe5 or 5...Nh6 6.d3; or 4...Nf6?
5.Ng5! Nd5 and now 6.d4!, 6.Qf3!, and 6.Nxf7!? Kxf7
7.Qf3+ are all possible, with positions similar to the line
of the Two Knights Defense beginning 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5?! (Keilhack
2005:133–34). However, 3...e5 4.Bc4 Nc6! is playable
(Keilhack 2005:135–43).
International Master Richard Palliser, in his 2006 book
Beating Unusual Chess Openings, recommends 1...d5 2.e4
11.13. DUNST OPENING
dxe4 3.Nxe4 Nd7 for Black. He explains, “Black doesn't
attempt to refute White’s opening or to gain lots of space
(as with 2...d4), but simply settles for sensible devel-
opment. The position should be compared to both a
Caro-Kann Defense and a French Rubinstein. Black will
hope to demonstrate that he has gained from the omis-
sion of an early ...c6 or ...e6, while White will generally
omit d4, preferring a setup with Bc4 and d3” (Palliser
2006:143). After 4.Bc4, the natural move 4...Ngf6!?
leads to very sharp and unclear play if White responds
with 5.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 6.Ng5+ Kg8 7.Ne6 Qe8 8.Nxc7
(Keilhack 2005:158–63) (Palliser 2006:144–46). More
solid is 4...e6 ("!" – Keilhack) (Keilhack 2005:164–70)
(Palliser 2006:144–48).
1...c5
1...c5 is often played by devotees of the Sicilian Defence,
into which the game often transposes, either immediately
after 2.e4 or at a later point. Alternatively, White can
remain in independent 1.Nc3 lines, at least for the time
being, with 2.Nf3 followed by 3.d4, which gives Black
a large choice of possible responses. One line Palliser
recommends for Black is 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 (3.e4 transposes
to a Sicilian) cxd4 4.Nxd4 d5!? (seizing the center) 5.Bg5
Nbd7! 6.e4 (more critical than the passive 6.e3?!) dxe4
7.Qe2 e6!? 8.0-0-0 Be7 9.Nxe4 0-0 when “White doesn't
appear to have any advantage” (Palliser 2006:154–56).
If White chooses to transpose to standard Sicilian lines,
the fact that his knight is committed to c3 may be a dis-
advantage in certain lines. The Closed Sicilian, com-
monly reached by 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3, without an early d4 by
White, gives Black few theoretical difficulties (de Fir-
mian 2008:346). If White instead chooses to play an
Open Sicilian with 2.e4 and 3.Nf3 or Nge2, followed by
d4, the knight’s placement on c3 prevents White from
playing the Maróczy Bind with c4. This makes the
Accelerated Dragon Variation with 2...Nc6 and 3...g6
particularly attractive (Gallagher 1994:146). Black may
also stop White’s intended d4 by playing an early ...e5,
e.g. 1.Nc3 c5 2.e4 Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 (Gallagher 1994:151–
55) or 3.Nge2 e5 (Gallagher 1994:148–51).
1...Nf6
Grandmaster Larry Kaufman recommends 1...Nf6, in-
tending to meet 2.e4 with 2...e5 or 2.d4 with 2...d5
(Kaufman 2004:484). Keilhack writes that “1...Nf6 is
one of the most unpleasant replies for the 1.Nc3 player.
Black keeps all options open, he can choose between
a central (...d5, possibly followed by ...c5) and an In-
dian (...g6, ...Bg7) setup. ... Among the many pos-
sible [second] moves [for White], none really stands
out.” (Keilhack 2005:338). The most straightforward 11.13.5 Sample games
moves for White are 2.d4 and 2.e4, but neither promises
White a significant advantage. After 2.d4, 2...d5 leads • Here is a quick victory by Dunst himself against
to the Richter-Veresov Attack (3.Bg5) or another type
271
of Queen’s Pawn Game where White, having blocked
his c-pawn, has little chance for advantage (Kaufman
2004:469, 473). After 2.e4, Black can again play 2...d5
with a type of Alekhine’s Defense; or 2...d6 3.d4 g6
with a Pirc Defense or 3...e5 with a Philidor’s Defense.
The most solid response to 2.e4 is 2...e5, leading to a
Vienna Game or, after 3.Nf3 Nc6, to a Four Knights
Game—neither of which offers White an appreciable ad-
vantage (Kaufman 2004:364–65) (de Firmian 2008:121).
Keilhack also analyzes a number of offbeat possibilities,
including 2.b3, 2.Nf3, 2.f4 (an unusual form of Bird’s
Opening that Keilhack calls the “Aasum System”), 2.g3,
and even the gambit 2.g4?! Palliser writes that none of
the alternatives to 2.e4 “really convince or should greatly
trouble Black over the board” (Palliser 2006:142).
1...e5
This natural move is playable, but dangerous if Black does
not know what he is doing. One of the main lines is
1...e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4, with poor chances for Black, con-
tinued by 3...exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bg5. Keilhack writes
that this variation “occurs rather often and offers excel-
lent chances for an early knockout” by White and that
“only two [moves] (5...Bb4 and 5...Bc5) do not immedi-
ately ruin Black’s game” (Keilhack 2005:26). (See, e.g.,
the Dunst–Gresser game given below.)
11.13.4 Transpositions to other openings
The move 1.Nc3 is considered an irregular opening, so
it is classified under the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia
of Chess Openings (also see List of chess openings).
Transpositions to more common openings are possible,
many of which are discussed in the preceding section.
In addition, 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 reaches a position in the
Scandinavian Defense; 1.Nc3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.e4 leads to a Scotch Four Knights Game;
1.Nc3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e4 Bc5 or 3...g6 gives a Three
Knights Game; 1.Nc3 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e4, or 2...e5 and
now 3.d5 Nce7 4.e4 or 3.dxe5 Nxe5 4.e4, yields a
Nimzowitsch Defense; and 1.Nc3 b6 2.e4 Bb7 3.d4 is
an Owen’s Defense. Transposition to a Dutch Defense
is also possible after 1.Nc3 f5 2.d4, but Keilhack con-
siders 2.e4! more dangerous, intending 2...fxe4 3.d3, a
reversed From’s Gambit (Keilhack 2005:369–70). Black
alternatives to 2...fxe4 include 2...d6, when 3.d4 trans-
poses to the Balogh Defense; and 2...e5?!, when 3.Nf3
produces a Latvian Gambit, but 3.exf5!, as in a game be-
tween Steinitz and Sam Loyd, may be stronger.[4]
nine-time U.S. Women’s Champion Gisela Gresser.
272
It illustrates the problems that White’s rapid devel-
opment can pose if Black is not careful:
Dunst–Gresser, New York 1950
1. Nc3 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Bg5 d5? (better is 5...Bb4 6.Nxc6
bxc6 7.Qd4 Be7 8.e4 0-0 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bf4 d5
11.0-0 dxe4 and the game was soon drawn in
Ekebjaerg–Oim, 14th World Correspondence
Chess Championship) 6. e4! Be7 7. Bb5
Bd7 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 Bxg5 10. Qe2+
Ne7? (Losing at once. 10...Be7 11.0-0-0 is
also very awkward. Although it’s unpleasant,
Black should have tried 10...Kf8.) 11. Qe5!
Bxb5? (11...0-0! 12.Qxg5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5
c6 and Black wins a piece back) 12. Nxc7+
Kf8 13. Nde6+ (now 13...fxe6 14.Ne6+ wins
Black’s queen) 1–0 (notes based on those by
Tim Harding)[5]
• Van Geet, another champion of the opening, routs
his opponent almost as quickly:
Van Geet–Guyt, Paramaribo 1967
1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e5 4. Ng3 g6 5.
Bc4 Bg7 6. d3 c5 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. c3 Nge7 9.
Ng5 0-0 (Now White has a surprising attack-
ing move.) 10. Nh5! Bh8 (10...gxh5 11.Qxh5
h6 12.Nxf7 is disastrous; 10...Na5 11.Nxg7
Nxc4! 12.dxc4 Kxg7 is forced.) 11. Qf3 Qe8
12. Nf6+ Bxf6 13. Qxf6 dxc3 (This loses
by force. Again it was necessary to harass the
bishop at c4 by ... Na5.) 14. Nxf7 Rxf7 15.
Bh6 1–0 (notes based on those by Eric Schiller
at Chessgames.com)[6]
11.13.6 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
11.13.7 References
[1] Blackburne–Noa, London 1883. ChessGames.com. Re-
trieved on 2009-02-06.
[2] Opening Explorer. ChessGames.com. Retrieved on
2009-02-06.
[3] White’s overall winning percentage is derived by taking
the percentage of games won by White and adding half of
the percentage of drawn games, in this case 34.8 plus half
of 23.9.
[4] Steinitz–Loyd, London 1867
[5] Who Dunst It?
CHAPTER 11. IRREGULAR OPENINGS
[6]
Bibliography
• de Firmian, Nick (2008), Modern Chess Openings
(15th edition), Random House Puzzles & Games,
ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7
• Dunnington, Angus (2000), Winning Unorthodox
Openings, Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4
• Gallagher, Joe (1994), Beating the Anti-Sicilians,
Henry Holt, ISBN 0-8050-3575-3
• Harding, T. D. (1974), Irregular Openings, Chess
Digest Magazine
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996), The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford
University, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
• Kaufman, Larry (2004), The Chess Advantage in
Black and White, David McKay, ISBN 0-8129-
3571-3
• Keilhack, Harald (2005), Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3,
Russell Enterprises, ISBN 1-888690-19-4
• Myers, Hugh (2002), A Chess Explorer, Myers
Opening Bulletin
• Palliser, Richard (2006), Beating Unusual Chess
Openings, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-429-9
• Schiller, Eric (2002), Unorthodox Chess Openings
(Second ed.), Cardoza, pp. 280–81, 471–82, ISBN
1-58042-072-9
• Wall, Bill (2002), 1. Nc3 Dunst Opening, Chess En-
terprises, ISBN 0-945470-48-7
11.13.8 External links
• Harding, Tim (June 1998), Who Dunst It,
ChessCafe.com
11.14 Amar Opening
The Amar Opening (also known as Paris Opening,
Drunken Knight Opening, or Ammonia Opening) is
a chess opening defined by the move:
1. Nh3
This opening is sometimes known as the Ammonia Open-
ing, since NH3 is the chemical formula for ammonia. The
Parisian amateur Charles Amar played it in the 1930s.
It was probably named by Savielly Tartakower who used
11.14. AMAR OPENING 273

both names for this opening, although the chess author

Tim Harding has jokingly suggested that “Amar” is an
acronym for “Absolutely mad and ridiculous” (Winter
1996, p. 89).
Since 1.Nh3 is considered an irregular opening, it is clas-
sified under the A00 code in the Encyclopaedia of Chess
Openings.

11.14.1 Discussion
Like the Durkin Opening, White develops a knight to a
rim square without having much reason to do so, and such
a development is quite awkward. (One of Siegbert Tar-
rasch's proverbs is “A knight on the rim is dim”.) Nev-
ertheless, developing the king’s knight prepares kingside
castling, and therefore 1.Nh3 is a more common move
than 1.Na3.
Black’s most common reply is 1...d5 which threatens
2...Bxh3, ruining White’s kingside pawn structure. White
usually plays 2.g3 to prevent this, and Black can then take
a grip of the center with 2...e5.

11.14.2 Named variations

There are several named variations in the Amar Opening.
The most well known one is known as the Paris Gambit:
1.Nh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.f4? Bxh3 4.Bxh3 exf4. In the Paris
Gambit, White allows Black a firm grip on the center,
and also gives up material. Therefore, the gambit is con-
sidered dubious. The only named variation in the Paris
Gambit is the Grant Gambit: 5.0-0 fxg3 6.hxg3. This
variation was first played by Savielly Tartakower against
Andor Lilienthal in Paris, 1933.
There is also one named subvariation in the 1...e5 varia-
tion, known as the Krazy Kat: 1.Nh3 e5 2.f3 d5 3.Nf2.

11.14.3 References
• Dunnington, Angus (2000). Winning Unorthodox
Openings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-
285-4.
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion To Chess (second ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• Schiller, Eric (2002). Unorthodox Chess Openings
(Second ed.). Cardoza. pp. 45–46. ISBN 1-58042-
072-9.
• Winter, Edward (1996). Chess Explorations. Lon-
don: Cadogan Books. ISBN 978-1-85744-171-0.

11.14.4 External links

• FM Eric Schiller’s analysis
Chapter 12

Traps

12.1 Fool’s mate 6.Be2 is probably better, but the

move played sets a trap.
For other uses, see Fool’s mate (disambiguation).
“Fool’s mate” is sometimes used to mean Scholar’s mate. 6... Rh6??

Defending against Bg6#, but ...

In chess, Fool’s Mate, also known as the “Two-Move
Checkmate”, is the checkmate in the fewest possible
number of moves from the start of the game. A prime 7. Qxh5+!
example consists of the moves:
White sacrifices his queen to draw
the black rook away from its control
1. f3 e5 of g6.
2. g4?? Qh4#
7... Rxh5 8. Bg6#
resulting in the position shown. (The pattern can have
slight variations: White might play 1.f4 instead of 1.f3 or
move the g-pawn first, and Black might play 1...e6 instead A similar mate can occur in From’s Gambit: 1. f4 e5 2.
of 1...e5.) g3? exf4 3. gxf4?? Qh4#
More generally, the term Fool’s Mate is applied to all sim-
ilar mates early in the game. For example, in 1. e4 g5
12.1.1 Details 2. d4 f6?? 3. Qh5#, the basic Fool’s Mate pattern is the
same: a player advances his f- and g-pawns, which permit
Fool’s Mate received its name because it can only occur if the enemy queen to mate along the unblocked diagonal.
White plays extraordinarily weakly (i.e. foolishly). Even One such Fool’s Mate is widely reported to have occurred
among rank beginners, the mate almost never occurs in in a possibly apocryphal 1959 game between Masefield
practice. and Trinka[2] which lasted just three moves: 1. e4 g5 2.
Teed vs. Delmar, 1896 Nc3 f5?? 3. Qh5#[3][4][5][6][7]
After 6...Rh6? White mates in two moves. Even more generally, the term Fool’s Mate is used in chess
variants to mean the shortest possible mate, especially
The same basic mating pattern can also occur later in those which bear a resemblance to the orthodox chess
the game. For instance, a well-known trap in the Dutch Fool’s Mate. For example, Fool’s Mate in the variant
Defence occurred in the game Frank Melville Teed vs. Progressive chess is: 1. e4 2. f6 g5?? 3. Qh5#
Eugene Delmar, 1896:[1]

1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 h6 3. Bf4 g5 4. Bg3 f4 12.1.2 Similar traps

It seems that Black has won the Greco vs. NN
bishop, but now comes ... Final position after 8.Bg6#

5. e3 A similar trap occurred in a game published by Gioachino

Threatening Qh5#, a basic Fool’s Greco in 1625:
Mate.
1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 f5? 4. exf5 Bxg2?
5... h5 6. Bd3?! 5. Qh5+ g6 6. fxg6 Nf6??

274
12.2. SCHOLAR’S MATE 275

6...Bg7 would have prolonged the 1. e4 e5

game, as the move opens a flight
2. Qh5 Nc6
square for the king at f8. White
still wins with 7.Qf5! Nf6 8.Bh6 3. Bc4 Nf6??
Bxh6 9.gxh7 Bxh1 10.Qg6+ Kf8
4. Qxf7#
11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Nh3, but much
slower than in the game.[8]
9...e6 opens another flight square The moves might be played in a different order or in slight
at e7. White then checks with variation, but the basic idea is the same: the queen and
10.Qg6+ Ke7. bishop combine in a simple mating attack on f7 (or f2 if
Black is performing the mate).

7. gxh7+! Nxh5 8. Bg6# Scholar’s Mate is sometimes referred to as the “Four-

Move Checkmate”, although there are other ways to
checkmate in four moves.
12.1.3 See also

• Scholar’s mate 12.2.1 Avoiding Scholar’s Mate

• Checkmate patterns Unlike Fool’s Mate, which rarely occurs at any level,
games ending in Scholar’s Mate are quite common among
beginners. After 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4, if Black
12.1.4 References continues 3... Nf6?? then White can end the game im-
mediately with 4. Qxf7#. However, Black can easily
[1] Teed vs. Delmar avoid the mate: either 3...Qe7 or 3...g6 defend against the
threat. If White renews the Qxf7 threat after 3... g6 4.
[2] The names are also recorded as Mayfield or Mansfield and Qf3, Black can easily defend by 4... Nf6 (see diagram),
Trinks or Trent depending on the source consulted. and develop the f8-bishop later via fianchetto (...Bg7).
[3] Mike Fox and Richard James (1993). The Even More White might also try this sequence of moves, starting
Complete Chess Addict. Faber and Faber. p. 177. from the Bishop’s Opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qh5
(threatening Scholar’s Mate on f7) and now 3... Qe7!
[4] Winter, Edward (2005). Chess Facts and Fables. McFar- (see diagram; 3...g6? instead would be a big mistake, al-
land & Co. pp. 253–254. ISBN 978-0-7864-2310-1. lowing 4.Qxe5+ and 5.Qxh8) and Black is not only safe,
but will attack the white queen later with ...Nf6. Alter-
[5] Edward G. Winter (August 2006). “Chess Notes 4493. natively, Black could have stopped White’s plans early on
Short game”.
by playing 2...Nf6 instead of 2...Bc5.
[6] Edward G. Winter (August 2006). “Chess Notes 4506.
Short game (C.N. 4493)".
12.2.2 Openings
[7] Averbakh, Yuri Lvovich; Beilin, Mikhail Abramovich
(1972). Путешествие в шахматное королевство (in Although a quick mate on f7 is almost never seen in play
Russian). Fizkultura i sport. p. 227. above beginner level, the basic idea underlying it—that
the f7-square and f2-square, defended only by the king,
[8] Lev Alburt (2011). Chess Openings for White, Explained.
is weak and therefore a good target for early attack—is
Chess Information Research Center. p. 509.
the motivating principle behind a number of chess open-
ings.[1] For example, after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4
Nf6 (the Two Knights Defense), White’s most popular
12.1.5 Further reading continuation is 4. Ng5 attacking f7, which is awkward for
Black to defend. The Fried Liver Attack even involves a
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), “Fool’s sacrifice of the knight on f7.
Mate”, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.),
Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280049-3 The Wayward Queen Attack (1. e4 e5 2. Qh5?!) and
Napoleon Opening (1. e4 e5 2. Qf3?!) are both
aimed at threatening Scholar’s Mate on the next move (3.
Bc4). Although the Napoleon Opening is never seen in
12.2 Scholar’s mate high-level competition, the Wayward Queen Attack has
occasionally been tried in tournaments by Grandmaster
In chess, Scholar’s Mate is the checkmate achieved by Hikaru Nakamura to achieve a practical middlegame for
the following moves, or similar: White.
276 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

12.2.3 Name in other languages

• In some languages, including Dutch, French, Ger-

man, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish: Shepherd’s
Mate

• In Italian: Barber’s Mate

• In Persian, Greek and Arabic: Napoleon’s Plan

• In Russian: Children’s Mate

• In Latvian: Shepherd’s Mate or Children’s Mate

• In Polish (where Fool’s Mate is known as Scholar’s

Mate), Danish, German, Croatian, Hungarian,
Slovenian, Slovakian and Hebrew: Shoemaker’s
Mate Falling into the Elephant Trap will cost White his queen’s knight.

• In Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish: School 12.3 Elephant Trap

Mate
In chess, the Elephant Trap is a faulty attempt by White
• In Esperanto: Stultula Mato (Fool’s Mate) to win a pawn in a popular variation of the Queen’s Gam-
bit Declined. This simple trap has snared thousands of
Scholar’s Mate has also occasionally been given other players, generally amateurs.
names in English, such as Schoolboy’s Mate--- which The earliest recorded occurrence of the trap seems to be
may be seen as better reflecting in modern English the Karl Mayet vs. Daniel Harrwitz, Berlin 1848.[1]
sense of 'novice' which was the word Scholar’s orig-
inal connotation--- and Blitzkrieg (German for “light-
ning war”, meaning a very short and quick engagement) 12.3.1 The trap
(Kidder 1960).
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7

12.2.4 See also This opening sequence usually indicates that

Black intends to play the Cambridge Springs
• Fool’s Mate Defense with 5.Nf3 c6 6.e3 Qa5, but it can
also lead to the Orthodox Defense if Black
• Checkmate patterns plays ...Be7. (The Cambridge Springs had not
yet been invented at the time of the Mayet–
Harrwitz game.)

12.2.5 References
Black has set a trap; if White tries to win a
pawn by ...
[1] Gabor Kallai (1997). Basic Chess Openings. Everyman
Chess. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-85744-113-0.
5. cxd5 exd5 6. Nxd5?? (first diagram)

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), “Scholar’s

White thinks that the black knight on f6 is
Mate”, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.),
pinned to the queen and cannot be moved.
Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280049-3

• Kidder, Harvey (1960), Illustrated Chess for Chil- 6... Nxd5! 7. Bxd8 Bb4+ (second diagram)
dren, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-05764-4
Black regains the queen as White has only one
• Sunnucks, Anne (1970), “Scholar’s Mate”, The En- legal move to get out of check.
cyclopaedia of Chess, St. Martins Press, ISBN 978-
0-7091-4697-1 8. Qd2 Bxd2+
12.4. HALOSAR TRAP 277

Harrwitz played the equally good 8...Kxd8, in- (when 4...e5? is ineffective as 5.dxe5 hits Black’s knight,
tending 9...Bxd2+. and after 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 the knight has to retreat to
d7 or g8). The position resulting after 3... Nf6 4.f3 re-
9. Kxd2 Kxd8 flects the main line of the gambit accepted, although other
Black responses on move three are possible. After many
years of analysis, Diemer wrote a book on the opening
Black comes out a minor piece ahead.
in the late 1950s, titled Vom Ersten Zug An Auf Matt!
(Toward Mate From The First Move!), with most of the
12.3.2 Notes published analysis devoted to the Ryder Gambit (and
associated Halosar Trap), a double-pawn sacrifice char-
[1] K. Mayet–D. Harrwitz, Berlin 1848 at Chessgames.com acterized by the moves 4...exf3 5.Qxf3.
This gambit is considered an aggressive opening, but its
soundness continues to be the subject of much debate
12.3.3 References
both on and off the chessboard. The ChessOK Opening
• Barden, Leonard (1987). Play Better Chess • Re- Tree Mode lists the Blackmar–Diemer as scoring 49%
vised Edition. Treasure Press. p. 24. ISBN 978- wins for White, 34% wins for Black, and 17% draws.[3]
1850512318. Dismissed by many masters on the one hand, and em-
braced enthusiastically by many amateurs on the other,
many consider that Black has good chances of defend-
ing successfully and converting the extra pawn in the
12.4 Halosar Trap endgame, while theory suggests that Black has many ways
to equalize. As a result, this opening is rarely seen in
The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit (or BDG) is a chess top-level play, but enjoys a certain popularity among club
opening characterized by the moves: players. Some titled players, including International Mas-
ter Gary Lane, consider the opening to be suitable at the
1. d4 d5 club level and for young and improving players. In one of
2. e4 dxe4 his Keybooks, the Rev Tim Sawyer said, “Stop playing for
the endgame, play to end the game! Be a winner. Play the
3. Nc3 Blackmar–Diemer Gambit!"[4] On the other hand, Sam
Collins (in his book Understanding the Chess Openings)
where White intends to follow up with f2–f3, usually on noted the tendency for some Blackmar–Diemer fanat-
the fourth move. White obtains a move and a half-open f- ics to try to get the opening in every game, thus limit-
file in return for a pawn, and as with most gambits, White ing their chess experience, and concluded, “Nobody who
aims to achieve rapid development and active posting of plays good chess plays this line, and nobody who plays
his pieces in order to rapidly build up an attack at the cost good chess ever will.”[5] Other dismissive quotes include
of the gambit pawn. It is one of the very few gambits “playing the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is like shopping
available to White after 1.d4.[1] for a tombstone” (Andrew Martin)[6] and “To convince
an adherent of the BDG that it is unsound, is like try-
ing to convince a child that there is no Santa Claus.”
12.4.1 History (Kevin Denny).[7] As a result of the intense controversy
surrounding the opening, much of the literature on the
The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit arose as a development opening is lacking in objectivity.[8]
of the earlier Blackmar Gambit, named after Armand
Blackmar, a relatively little-known New Orleans player
of the late 19th century who popularized its characteristic
moves (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3) and was the first player to
publish analysis on the opening in the chess literature.[2]
The popularity of the original Blackmar Gambit, how-
ever, was short-lived, as it was basically unsound, allow-
ing Black to secure a superior position after White’s im-
12.4.2 Main variations
mediate 3.f3 with 3...e5!. In 1889, Ignatz von Popiel
came up with the idea of 3.Nc3, though his main idea was
It is easy for Black to decline the gambit on the sec-
to meet 3...Nf6 with 4.Bg5 (rather than the more usual
ond move with 2...e6 (leading to a French Defence) or
4.f3) and provided analysis of the Lemberger Counter-2...c6 (leading to a Caro-Kann Defence), although doing
Gambit (3.Nc3 e5). so does not eliminate White’s ability to offer alternative
The evolved, modern form of this gambit owes much to gambits such as the Diemer-Duhm Gambit (2...e6 3.c4)
the German master Emil Josef Diemer (1908–90), who or the Alapin-Diemer Gambit (2...e6 3.Be3), or for in-
popularized the continuation 3.Nc3 Nf6 and then 4.f3 stance 2...c6 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 or 4.Bc4 intending 5.f3.
278 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

12.4.3 Main line Euwe Defence: 5...e6

After 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3, The 5...e6 line, analysed by Max Euwe, aims to reach
Black has five main options: a French Defence type position, but with Black having
an extra pawn. Play usually continues 6.Bg5 Be7, when
White’s most popular option is 7.Bd3. Black can attack
the centre immediately with 7...c5!? here, as recom-
mended by Joe Gallagher and James Rizzitano.[18] Play
Gunderam Defence: 5...Bf5
can continue 8.dxc5 Qa5 9.0-0 Qxc5+ 10.Kh1, when
White has to play accurately to prove compensation for
The line 5...Bf5 (along with most of the ...c6/...Bf5 de- the pawn. Alternatively 7...Nc6 can be considered the
fences for Black in general) was extensively analysed main line of this variation, when 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1 is
by Gerhart Gunderam, who published his analysis in a the notorious Zilbermints Gambit, sacrificing a second
book Blackmar–Diemer Gambit in 1984.[9] The main pawn in order to increase White’s initiative. The Zil-
response for White is 6.Ne5, intending to attack the bermints Gambit has scored well in practice, but objec-
black bishop with an advance of the kingside pawns and, tively it probably does not give White enough compen-
if appropriate, weaken Black’s kingside pawn structure sation for two pawns. However, the alternative 8.a3, de-
with Ne5xBg6. Black can respond with 6...e6, when spite the loss of time, offers White good compensation
after 7.g4, 7...Be4 leads to tremendous complications, for the pawn, and White can also consider 8.Qd2, allow-
e.g. after 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4 10.Qxf7+ Kd8 ing the trade of the bishop on d3 but avoiding any loss
11.Qf4.[10] More common is 7...Bg6, which leads to qui- of time.[19] White’s main alternative to 7.Bd3 is 7.Qd2,
eter play, when White’s best response is probably 8.Bg2 aiming to castle queenside and giving additional support
c6 9.h4, with a sustained kingside initiative in return for to the d4-pawn, while aiming to launch a kingside of-
the pawn.[11] However, Black also has the option 6...c6 fensive with Qd2–f4 and meeting ...h6 with a dangerous
intending 7.g4 Be6, when White has to play accurately to Bxh6 sacrifice. Play can continue 7...0-0 8.0-0-0 (8.Bd3
prove enough compensation for the pawn after 8.g5 Nd5 c5! is better for Black) 8...c5 9.Qf4!? cxd4 10.Rxd4[20]
or 8.Bc4 Nd5 9.Qe2 Nd7.[12] White has an alternative or 7...h6 8.Bh4 (8.Bf4 is also possible, aiming to keep
in 6.Bd3, directly challenging the bishop, but Christoph the Bxh6 sacrifice possibility open, but allowing 8...Bb4
Scheerer doubts that White gets enough compensation af- 9.Bc4 Ne4)[21] 8...Ne4 9.Nxe4 Bxh4+ 10.g3 Be7 11.Bg2,
ter 6...Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 intending ...e6, ...Nbd7, ...Be7 when White has some compensation for the pawn but the
and ...0-0 with a solid position.[13] final verdict on the resulting positions is still yet to be
reached.

Teichmann Defence: 5...Bg4

Bogoljubov Defence: 5...g6

The move 5...Bg4 pins the knight on f3, often with the
intention of swapping it off and undermining White’s
central control.[14] White’s best response is to attack the
bishop immediately with 6.h3, when play often contin-
ues 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 (but not 7...Nc6, when 8.Bb5 is
good for White). In this position, White can defend the
attacked d-pawn with 8.Qf2 (the Ciesielski Variation),
but this allows Black an easy game by preparing ...e7–
e5, e.g. after 8...Nbd7 9.Bd3 e5.[15] Alternatively, 8.Be3
is the Classical Variation, where White aims for a slow
buildup to a kingside offensive. White’s other main alter-
native is 8.g4!?, the Seidel–Hall Attack, where White is
happy to sacrifice the d-pawn in order to gain an increased
initiative on the kingside, e.g. after 8...Qxd4 9.Be3 Qe5
10.0-0-0 e6 11.g5. Black can decline the pawn, e.g. af-
ter 8...e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3, leading to sharp play.[16] Al-
ternatively, after 6.h3, Black can retreat the bishop with
6...Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5, a line which often transposes to
the Gunderam Defence line 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6
after a subsequent h3–h4, as White’s extra tempo with
h3 is not particularly useful.[17]
The Bogoljubov Defence was played by Diemer himself
in a game against Bogoljubov. By fianchettoing the king’s
bishop Black aims to gain increased pressure against the
d4-pawn following a subsequent ...c5. White’s most com-
mon response is the Studier Attack, 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.0-0
0-0 8.Qe1, intending Qh4, Bh6 and piling pressure on
the kingside, sacrificing pawns at d4 and c2 if appropri-
ate, and Black has to play accurately in order to survive.
However, after Peter Leisebein’s 8...Nc6 9.Qh4 Bg4!, it
is doubtful if White obtains enough compensation for the
pawn against accurate play.[22] An alternative approach is
to castle queenside, play Bh6 and then launch the h-pawn
against the black kingside. The best way to carry out this
approach is via 6.Bf4, as 6.Bg5 (as played by Bogoljubov
in his game against Diemer) is well met by 6...Bg7 7.Qd2
0-0 8.0-0-0 c5!, when Black stands better.[23] If Black
tries the same approach against 6.Bf4, i.e. 6...Bg7 7.Qd2
0-0 8.0-0-0 c5, then 9.d5 a6 10.d6! gives White good
chances.[24]
12.4. HALOSAR TRAP
Ziegler Defence: 5...c6
Black’s most critical response to the Blackmar–Diemer
Gambit is 5...c6, known as the Ziegler Defence due to
Diemer’s tendency to name lines after opponents that first
played them against him, but most of the theory of the line
was established by Gerhart Gunderam, who advocated
5...Bf5.[25] Most modern authors recommend this as
Black’s antidote to the BDG,[26] sometimes via O'Kelly’s
move order 4...c6. The old main line runs 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-
0 e6 8.Ne5, when Black should avoid 8...Bxc2?! 9.Nxf7!,
but instead play 8...Bg6!, when White ends up with very
little to show for the lost pawn.[27] More dangerous for
Black is 8.Ng5, the Alchemy Variation, where Black has
to be careful not to fall for various sacrifices on e6 and f7,
but White probably does not get enough compensation
for the pawn after 8...Bg6 9.Ne2 Bd6. German FIDE
master Stefan Bücker regards Black as clearly better af-
ter 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 0-0,[28] but Christoph Scheerer
believes that White can generate attacking chances with
12.c3 h6 13.Qg4!?.[29] In view of White’s problems prov-
ing compensation in these lines, ChessCafe.com reviewer
Carsten Hansen concluded, “despite all the smoke and
mirrors, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit still isn't viable
beyond club-level or rapid-play games”.[30] However, Lev
Gutman proposed the alternative 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4!? Bg6
9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3, intending to castle queenside and
tie Black down to the f7-pawn, promising long-term po-
sitional compensation for the pawn.[28] There are cur-
rently insufficient practical tests to determine whether it
amounts to enough compensation for the lost pawn.[31]
Black cannot easily deviate from this line, since after
7...Nbd7 White continues 8.Qe2 e6 9.0-0-0, aiming to
launch a strong attack down the e and f-files, and if
9...Bb4 then 10.d5!. If White tries to enter this setup af-
ter 7...e6 8.Qe2, however, then 8...Bb4! prevents White
from safely castling queenside, leaving White with in-
sufficient compensation for the pawn.[31] White also has
the dangerous, though probably objectively insufficient,
second pawn sacrifice 7.g4, analysed extensively by Ste-
fan Bücker.[28] In the 5...c6 move-order White has the
alternative 6.Bd3, usually intending to sacrifice a sec-
ond pawn after 6...Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxd4, lead-
ing to sharp complications, though Black can transpose
back to the Classical Variation of the Teichmann De-
fence with 8...e6, since White’s only good response is
9.Be3.[32] Black can prevent this 6.Bd3 possibility by us-
ing O'Kelly’s move-order 4...c6.
Ryder Gambit: 5.Qxf3
Alternatively, White can offer a second pawn with
5.Qxf3. Gary Lane argued in 2000 that White has serious
problems proving enough compensation for the sacrificed
pawns after 5... Qxd4 6. Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5. Black can
also decline the pawn with 5...c6 or 5...e6, holding the
position.[33]
279
The Halosar Trap (named after Hermann Halosar) fol-
lows after 6... Qb4 7.0-0-0 Bg4? 8.Nb5! threaten-
ing mate with 9.Nxc7#. The black queen cannot cap-
ture the knight because 8...Qxb5 9.Bxb5+ is check, gain-
ing time for the white queen to escape the threat from
the bishop. The line continues 8...Na6 9. Qxb7 Qe4
(Black lost in Diemer–Halosar, Baden-Baden 1934, after
9...Rc8 10.Qxa6) 10. Qxa6 Qxe3+ (Worse is 10...Bxd1
11.Kxd1 Rd8+ 12.Bd2 and White is winning, for exam-
ple 12...Ng4 13.Nxc7+ Kd7 14.Qxa7) 11. Kb1 Qc5 12.
Nf3. Burgess wrote that “Although White has some ad-
vantage, Black has avoided instant loss”.[34]
12.4.4 Fourth-move alternatives for Black
O'Kelly Defence: 4...c6
Many sources recommend the O'Kelly Defence as a
means of transposing to the Ziegler Defence while cut-
ting out White’s 6.Bd3 possibility, since White has noth-
ing better than 5.Bc4, when 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 trans-
poses directly to the 6.Bc4 Bf5 variation of the Ziegler
Defence. Alternatively, 5.Nxe4 is likely to land White in
an inferior version of the Fantasy Variation of the Caro-
Kann Defence, with equality at best in positions that may
not attract Blackmar-Diemer players, 5.fxe4 e5! is good
for Black and other bishop moves allow Black to achieve
superior versions of standard Blackmar–Diemer Gambit
variations.[28][35] 4...c6 also has some independent value,
for example Evgeny Bareev used the continuation 5.f3
b5!? in a game against Nigel Short, achieving a supe-
rior position after 6.Bb3 Be6 7.fxe4 b4 8.Nce2 Nxe4,
but 8.Na4!? improves for White and may give sufficient
compensation for the pawn.[36] Black can also try 5...Bf5,
when White must play accurately to prove enough com-
pensation, but probably obtains sufficient play after 6.g4
Bg6 7.g5 Nd5 8.fxe4 Nxc3 9.bxc3.[37]
Vienna Defence: 4...Bf5
The Vienna Defence was recommended by Matthias
Wahls in his book Modernes Skandinavisch, where he saw
it as a refutation of the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit.[38]
White can play for compensation for a pawn with 5.fxe4
Nxe4 6.Qf3, when both 6...Nxc3 and 6...Nd6 lead to
complicated positions in which Black often tries to re-
turn a pawn on b7 in order to catch up on develop-
ment, and in some cases secure a positional advantage.
White often does best to continue with a gambit pol-
icy and simply continue developing. The main line runs
6...Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 c6 9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7, when
Black is solid, but White retains enough compensation
for the pawn.[39] Alternatively, 5.g4 aims to regain the
pawn in most cases, e.g. after 5...Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4
Nc6 8.Bb5 e6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Ne2 c5 11.dxc5 Nb4,
when in a reversal of roles, White has an extra pawn but
Black has the initiative and a superior pawn structure.[40]
280
White can use 5.g4 as a gambit option by continuing with
6.h4!?, which leads to sharp play and approximately equal
chances.[41]
Langeheinicke Defence: 4...e3
The push with 4...e3 is often used by strong players to
avoid the complications arising from 4...exf3 5.Nxf3, but
it is one of Black’s weaker options against the Blackmar-
Diemer as returning the pawn in this way does not sig-
nificantly slow down White’s initiative, and thus Black
struggles to fully equalize in this line. In most lines White
must seek to place a knight on f4 (taking the sting out of
...Nd5) in order to secure an advantage.[42]
12.4.5 Third-move alternatives for Black
Lemberger Counter-Gambit: 3...e5
The Lemberger Counter-Gambit is an important alter-
native, where Black counterattacks against the d4-pawn
instead of defending the attacked e4-pawn. White can
head for a drawish endgame with 4.dxe5, e.g. 4...Qxd1+
5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Nxe4 Nxe5, or 5.Nxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4, with
equality and few winning chances for either side.[43] Since
these positions typically do not attract gambiteers, White • 1.e4 d5 2.d4 is also a surprising transposition against
often chooses a riskier response in order to generate win-
ning chances, such as 4.Qh5, 4.Nge2 or 4.Nxe4. Both
4.Qh5 and 4.Nge2 are well met by 4...Nc6!, when Black The list is incomplete and transpositions abound.
has good chances of obtaining an advantage, while against
4.Nxe4 the most critical continuation is 4...Qxd4, when
White can continue with either 5.Qe2 or 5.Bd3, with 12.4.7 See also
complications and some compensation for the pawn in
either case, but it is unclear if it is enough.[44]
Other options for Black
3...f5 is an important option for Black, since 4.f3 is well
met by 4...e5!, with some advantage for Black. Instead
White does better to prevent ...e5 with 4.Bf4, and then
obtain compensation for a pawn with a subsequent f3.[45]
3...Bf5 is well met by 4.f3, and if 4...exf3 then 5.Qxf3
attacking the bishop (thus Black may be better off trans-
posing to the Vienna Defence with 4...Nf6).[46] 3...c6 and
3...e6 transpose to the Caro-Kann Defence and French
Defence respectively, and in the former case White can
continue in Blackmar–Diemer Gambit style with 4.f3
or 4.Bc4 intending 5.f3 (which often transposes to the
O'Kelly Defence). After 3...e6, however, White cannot
easily force a Blackmar–Diemer Gambit type position as
4.f3 Bb4 is awkward.
12.4.6 Related gambit ideas
Since Black can sidestep the BDG in several ways, BDG
adherents have developed related gambits:
CHAPTER 12. TRAPS
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c6 (the Caro-Kann Defence) 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.f3 was invented by Philip Stuart Milner-
Barry in 1932 and 4.Bc4 Nf6 (or Bf5) 5.f3 by
Heinrich Von Hennig in 1920 and thus are older than
Diemer’s idea.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 (the French Defense) 3.Be3 is the
Alapin-Diemer Gambit; sometimes White plays the
typical f2–f3 a bit later.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 and 3...Nf6 4.Bg5
dxe4 5.f3 are very rare.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4
6.f3 is the Winckelmann–Reimer Gambit.
• 1.d4 d5 2.e4 Nc6 (the Nimzowitsch Defence) 3.Nc3
dxe4 4.d5 may be followed by 5.f3 or 5.f4.
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 (c5 may lead to a kind of Benoni)
3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 simply transposes.
• 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 is called the Hübsch
Gambit.
• 1.d4 f5 2.e4 (the Staunton Gambit)
• 1.f3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 is the Gedult Gambit.
the Scandinavian Defense.
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after people
12.4.8 References
[1] Blackmar–Diemer Gambit, Chess Digest (1977), p.5.
[2] Armand Edward Blackmar at Chessgames.com.
[3] http://chessok.com/?page_id=352
[4] Scheerer 2011, p. 9.
[5] “Checkpoint: Bishops before knights” (PDF). Retrieved
2011-11-06.
[6] “Shopping for a tombstone”. Retrieved 2011-11-06.
[7] “Topnotch analysis of the Blackmar–Diemer”. Retrieved
2011-11-06.
[8] Scheerer 2011, p. 10
[9] Scheerer 2011, p. 206.
[10] Scheerer 2011, p. 216
[11] Scheerer 2011, p. 218
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP 281

[12] Scheerer 2011, p. 219. 12.4.9 Further reading

[13] Scheerer 2011, p. 207 • Avrukh, Boris (2012). Grandmaster Repertoire 11,
[14] Scheerer 2011, p. 233. Beating 1.d4 Sidelines. Quality Chess. ISBN 978-1-
907982-12-5.
[15] Scheerer 2011, p. 258
• Lane, Gary (1995). Blackmar–Diemer Gambit.
[16] Scheerer 2011, p. 262. Batsford Chess Library / An Owl Book / Henry Holt
[17] Scheerer 2011, p. 234 and Company. ISBN 0-8050-4230-X.

[18] Scheerer 2011, p. 145 • Purser, Tom & Anders Tejler (1998). Blackmar,
Diemer & Gedult. Blackmar Press. ISBN 0-
[19] Scheerer 2011, p. 155. 9619606-3-9.
[20] Scheerer 2011, p. 163
• Sawyer, Tim (1992). Blackmar–Diemer Gambit
[21] Scheerer 2011, p. 167 Keybook. Thinkers’ Press.

[22] Scheerer 2011, p. 200 • Scheerer, Christoph (2011). The Blackmar-Diemer

Gambit: A modern guide to a fascinating chess open-
[23] Scheerer 2011, p. 170
ing. Everyman Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-598-5.
[24] Scheerer 2011, p. 204
• Schiller, Eric (1986). Blackmar Diemer Gambit.
[25] Scheerer 2011, p. 277 Thinkers Pr Inc / Chessco. ISBN 0-931462-52-5.
[26] Avrukh, Boris, Grandmaster Repertoire 11, Beating 1.d4
Sidelines, Quality Chess, 2012, Chapter 2. 12.4.10 External links
[27] Scheerer 2011, p. 286
• Tom Purser’s BDG Pages
[28] “Over the Horizons: How to Detect a Novelty” (PDF).
Retrieved 2010-05-07. • Blackmar Diemer opening theory

[29] Scheerer 2011, p. 293 • Emil Diemer (1908–90) et les gambits sur le site
Mieux jouer aux échecs
[30] “Checkpoint: Good and Bad Weapons” (PDF). Retrieved
2011-11-06. • Blackmar–Diemer Gambit Games
[31] Scheerer 2011, p. 279 • Tim Sawyer’s blog
[32] Scheerer 2011, p. 300 • Opening Report: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 (6503 games)
[33] “Gary Lane on Ryder Gambit”. Retrieved 2011-11-06. • Stefan Bücker (2009). “Over the Horizons” (PDF).
[34] Burgess, Graham (2000). The Mammoth Book of Chess Chesscafe.com.
(2nd edition). UK: Robinson. pp. 202–3. ISBN 1-84119-
126-4.

[35] Scheerer 2011, p. 96 12.5 Kieninger Trap

[36] Scheerer 2011, p. 100 The Budapest Gambit (or Budapest Defence) is a chess
[37] Scheerer 2011, p. 101 opening that begins with the moves:

[38] Scheerer 2011, p. 103

1. d4 Nf6
[39] Scheerer 2011, p. 116 2. c4 e5
[40] Scheerer 2011, p. 129
Despite an early debut in 1896, the Budapest Gambit re-
[41] Scheerer 2011, p. 120 ceived attention from leading players only after a win as
[42] Scheerer 2011, p. 84 Black by Grandmaster Milan Vidmar over Akiba Rubin-
stein in 1918. It enjoyed a rise in popularity in the early
[43] Scheerer 2011, p. 16 1920s, but nowadays is rarely played at the top level. It
[44] Scheerer 2011, p. 49 experiences a lower percentage of draws than other main
lines, but also a lower overall performance for Black.
[45] Scheerer 2011, p. 68
After 3.dxe5 Black can try the Fajarowicz variation
[46] Scheerer 2011, p. 60 3...Ne4 which concentrates on the rapid development of
282 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

the pieces, but the most common move is 3...Ng4 with

three main possibilities for White. The Adler variation
4.Nf3 sees White seeking a spatial advantage in the centre
with his pieces, notably the important d5-square. The
Alekhine variation 4.e4 gives White an important spatial
advantage and a strong pawn centre. The Rubinstein vari-
ation 4.Bf4 leads to an important choice for White, after
4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+, between 6.Nbd2 and 6.Nc3. The
reply 6.Nbd2 brings a positional game in which White
enjoys the bishop pair and tries to break through on the
queenside, while 6.Nc3 keeps the material advantage of
a pawn at the cost of a weakening of the white pawn
structure. Black usually looks to have an aggressive game
(many lines can shock opponents that do not know the
theory) or cripple White’s pawn structure.
The Budapest Gambit contains several specific strategic
themes. After 3.dxe5 Ng4, there is a battle over White’s
extra pawn on e5, which Black typically attacks with
...Nc6 and (after ...Bc5 or ...Bb4+) ...Qe7, while White
often defends it with Bf4, Nf3, and sometimes Qd5. In
the 4.Nf3 variation the game can evolve either with Black
attacking White’s kingside with manoeuvres of rook lifts,
or with White attacking Black’s kingside with the push
f2–f4, in which case Black reacts in the centre against
the e3-pawn. In numerous variations the move c4–c5 al-
lows White to gain space and to open prospects for his
Tartakower, a practitioner of the Budapest Gambit
light-square bishop. For Black, the check Bf8–b4+ often
allows rapid development.
had found. Vidmar followed Abonyi’s advice and beat
Rubinstein convincingly in just 24 moves.[6] This victory
12.5.1 History
so heartened Vidmar that he went on to win the tourna-
In a Chess Notes feature article, Edward Winter showed ment, while Rubinstein was so demoralised by this defeat
that the origins of this opening are not yet entirely that he lost another game against Mieses and[2][7] drew a third
[1]
elucidated. The first known game with the Budapest one against Schlechter in the same opening.
Gambit is Adler–Maróczy (played in Budapest in 1896). After this tournament, the gambit finally began to be
This game already featured some key aspects of the gam- taken seriously. Top players like Savielly Tartakower and
bit, such as active play for the black pieces, and White Siegbert Tarrasch started to play it. Schlechter published
making the typical mistake of moving the queen too early. in 1918 the monograph Die budapester Verteidigung des
As the player of the white pieces was not a strong player, Damengambits,[8] which can be considered the first book
the new opening went unnoticed apart from the local on this opening. The gambit reached its peak of pop-
experts who had witnessed the game. The Hungarians ularity (around five Budapest Gambits for every thou-
István Abonyi, Zsigmond Barász and Gyula Breyer fur- sand games played) around 1920,[9] so much so that many
ther developed the opening. Abonyi played it in 1916 White players adopted the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 to
against the Dutch surgeon Johannes Esser in a small tour- avoid it.[10][11]
nament in Budapest. The Austrian player Josef Emil Kre- The leading exponents of 1.d4 started to look for reliable
jcik played it against Helmer in Vienna in 1917. Carl antidotes. Alexander Alekhine showed how White could
Schlechter published an optimistic analysis of the gambit get a strong attack with 4.e4 in his games against Ilya Ra-
in the Deutsche Schachzeitung.[2][3][4] binovich (Baden-Baden 1925) and Adolf Seitz (Hastings
The first use of the opening against a world-class player 1925–26). But a few weeks later a theme tournament
was at Berlin in April 1918, a double round-robin on the Budapest Gambit was held, in Budapest, and the
tournament with four players: Akiba Rubinstein, Carl result was 14½–21½ in Black’s favor. Another tourna-
Schlechter, Jacques Mieses and Milan Vidmar. Vidmar ment in Semmering the same year saw Alekhine losing
had to play Black in the first round against Rubinstein, to Karl Gilg in his pet line with White against the gambit,
then ranked the fourth best player in the world with a very so that the e4-line had a mixed reputation.[10] Meanwhile,
positional style.[5] At a loss for what to play, he sought more positional plans were also developed for White. Ru-
advice from his friend Abonyi, who showed him the Bu- binstein showed how White could get a small positional
dapest Gambit and the main ideas the Hungarian players advantage with 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2, an as-
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP
sessment still valid today. The possibility 6.Nc3 was also
considered attractive, as structural weaknesses were not
valued as much as a material advantage of one pawn in
those days. By the end of the 1920s, despite the inven-
tion of the highly original Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 in
1928, the Budapest Gambit was considered theoretically
dubious.[12]
This assessment was left unchanged for decades, as few
players at the highest level used the Budapest Gambit and
information about games from lesser players could not
easily be found. During that time, various responses were
developed against the 4.Bf4 line; these included 4...g5,
invented by István Abonyi, further developed by the mas-
ters Bakonyi and Drimer. The master Kaposztas showed
that even when White succeeded in his positional plan, Nicolas Giffard summarises the modern assessment of the
it only meant for Black a worse endgame with drawish Budapest Gambit:[34]
tendencies.[notes 1] Two pawn sacrifices were also intro-
duced in the variation with 6.Nbd2 (still in the 4.Bf4
line), based on pawn pushes d7–d6 or f7–f6 and a quick
attack against b2.[13]
The Budapest Gambit saw a short-lived revival in 1984–
85 when Chess Informant included three games (as many
as in the previous fifteen years), all played at a high
[14]
level of competition, and all won by Black. But White
players found reinforcements and even invented a line
[15]
with 4.e3 and 5.Nh3. In the 21st century, despite
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov's successful efforts to rehabili-
tate the line 4.Bf4 g5, the Budapest Gambit almost never
appears at the highest level.[16][17] Its most recent appear- Boris Avrukh writes, “The Budapest Gambit is almost a
ance was when Richard Rapport defeated Boris Gelfand respectable opening; I doubt there is a refutation. Even
with Black using the opening in round 2 of the 2014 Tata in the lines where White manages to keep an extra pawn,
Steel Chess competition.[18]
12.5.2 Performance
In the database of the website ChessGames.com, the Bu-
dapest Gambit scores 28.9% Black wins, 44.1% White
wins and 27.1% draws. The percentage of draws is es-
pecially low compared to mainstream alternatives such
as 2...e6 (43.7% draws) or 2...g6 (37% draws). This
opening gives more chance to win for both opponents,
although the percentage of Black wins is still lower than
the alternative 2...c5. In the main line 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4
the percentage of Black wins already falls to 21.1%, lower
than the main lines after 2...e6 or 2...g6.[19]
The Budapest Gambit has never been widely used as
Black by the top-ten chessplayers. Richard Réti used it
five times in the period 1919–26 when he was among
the ten best players in the world,[20] but he scored only
1½ points.[21] Savielly Tartakower used it four times
in 1928 when he was the eighth-best player in the
world,[22] including thrice in one tournament (Bad Kissin-
gen 1928) but he scored only ½ point against world-
class opposition: Bogoljubov then ranked number four
in the world,[23] Capablanca ranked number two,[24] and
Rubinstein ranked number seven.[5][25] Rudolf Spielmann
283
used it thrice in 1922–23 when he was about number
9–12 in the world,[26] with a win against Euwe but de-
feats against Yates and Sämisch.[27] Nigel Short played
the gambit twice in the years 1992–93 when he was num-
ber 7–11,[28] scoring only ½ points against Karpov (then
ranked number two[29] ) and Ivanchuk (then ranked num-
ber three[30] ).[31] Recently, Mamedyarov used it twice in
2004 (scoring 1½ with a win against Van Wely) when
he was not already among the top-players, and six times
in 2008 when he was about number 6–14; he scored
five points with wins against former world champion
Kramnik (then ranked number three[32] ), and grandmas-
ters Tkachiev and Eljanov, but all six games took place in
rapid or blitz events.[33]
[It is] an old opening, seldom used by
champions without having fallen in disgrace.
While White has several methods to get a small
advantage, this defence is strategically sound.
Black gets a good pawn structure and possibil-
ities of attack on the kingside. His problems
generally come from the white pressure on the
d-column and a lack of space to manoeuvre his
pieces.
Black always has a lot of play for it.”[35]
12.5.3 Strategic and tactical themes
White builds up an imposing pawn centre
White has a strong pawn centre.
In the Alekhine variation White does not try to defend his
e5-pawn and keep his material advantage, but instead he
concentrates on building an imposing pawn centre. This
brings him good prospects of a space advantage that may
serve as a basis for a future attack on the kingside. How-
ever, the extended pawn centre has its drawbacks, as Lalic
explains: “White must invest some valuable tempi in pro-
tecting his pawn structure, which allows Black to seize the
best squares for his minor pieces with excellent prospects
for counterplay against the white centre.”[36]
Hence in this variation Black lets White build his pawn
centre only to undermine it later, a playing philosophy
espoused in the teachings of the hypermodern school.
The strategic themes are similar to the ones that can be
found in other openings like the Four Pawns Attack, the
Alekhine Defence or the Grünfeld Defence.[36]
284
Budapest rook
The “Budapest rook” is a manoeuvre, introduced by the
IM Dolfi Drimer in 1968,[37] with which Black develops
the a8 rook aggressively along the sixth rank using the
moves a7–a5 and the rook lift Ra8–a6–h6.[38] For exam-
ple, this can happen in the Adler variation after the move
sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3
Nc6 6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3 a5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nc3
Ra6 11.b3 Rh6.
The rook lift of the Budapest rook, along with an attacking queen
manoeuvre.
The rook is then used to support a piece attack against
White’s castled King.[39] Black can easily get several
pieces around the white king, notably a rook to h6, a
queen to h4 and a knight on g4. The queen’s arrival
on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of a white
knight on the f3-square (that would otherwise cover the
h4-square) and of a black knight on the f6-square (that
would block the way for the black queen).[39] If White
tries to defend with h2–h3, this may allow the Bc8 to be
sacrificed at h3 in order to open the h-file.[39]
The Bc5 may not seem particularly useful in this attack,
but by eyeing e3 it makes it difficult for White to play
f4 to chase away the black knight;[40] furthermore, the
attack on e3 is sometimes intensified with major pieces
doubling on the e-file. Besides, the Bc5 can sometimes be
recycled to the b8–h2 diagonal via Bc5–a7–b8, to apply
still more pressure on h2.[41] It can also stay on the a7–g1
diagonal to put pressure on f2, if White pushes e3–e4 at
some stage.
The “Budapest rook” was an invigorating innovation of
the 1980s, and gave the gambit new life. However, in-
conveniences arise from delaying d7–d6 in order to allow
the lift: the light-square bishop has to wait a long time to
develop, and any attack on the Bc5 is potentially annoy-
ing for Black (since it means either closing the sixth rank
CHAPTER 12. TRAPS
with ...d6/...b6, abandoning the active a7–g1 diagonal, or
blocking the rook when deployed to a7). This, in addition
to the risk of awkwardness in the king side (a knight on f5
will fork the Rh6 and the Qh4) and the single-mindedness
of Black’s plan (with nothing to fall back on if the direct
attack is repelled), has made some revisit the old lines,
where it is instead the king’s rook that is developed to h6.
The queen’s rook can then be retained on the queenside,
and will be well-placed if the b-file opens as a result of
Black’s Bc5 being exchanged and recaptured with a b6
pawn.
Advantages of ...Bb4+
Alekhine variation: here 6...Bb4+ is considered a good
move.
In most variations Black has the opportunity to play
Bb4+, a move whose advisability depends on White’s
possible answers. If White blocks the check with Nb1–
c3 then Black should capture the knight only if White
is forced to take back with the pawn, after which the
isolated, doubled pawns are a positional advantage for
Black that fully compensates the loss of the bishop pair,
and even the gambitted pawn. Due to its immunity to
pawn attacks, the c5-square may be used by Black as a
stronghold for his pieces. Piece exchanges can be good
for Black even if he is a pawn down, as he can hope to ex-
ploit the crippled pawn structure in the ending.[42] On the
other hand, if White can recapture with a piece, the trade
on c3 typically concedes the bishop pair for insufficient
compensation.
If White is compelled to play Nb1–d2, it is sometimes a
minuscule positional concession, as it makes it harder for
this knight to reach its ideal square d5.[43] However, if
Black is later compelled to exchange Bxd2, that is advan-
tageous to White who thereby gains the bishop pair.[43]
Besides, in some situations the Bb4 could be as misplaced
as the Nd2.[43] Finally, if White has to play Bd2, then
Black should exchange the bishops only if White is forced
to recapture with the Nb1, as a recapture by the Qd1
would still allow the Nb1 to reach the d5-square through
Nb1–c3–d5.
For example in the Alekhine variation, after 1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6 6.Nf3, the move
6...Bb4+ (see diagram at right) is good because White
has no good reply apart from 7.Nc3. Indeed, 7.Nbd2?
just loses a pawn after 7...Nxf4 whereas 7.Bd2?! Qe7!
causes White great problems: both the pawn f4 and e4
pawns are attacked, and 8.Bxb4 Qxb4+ results in a dou-
ble attack against b2 and f4.[44] After 7.Nc3 Black can
either answer with 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 or with 7...Qf6, si-
multaneously attacking c3 and f4.[notes 2]
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP 285

This push can yield several advantages to White: it en-

hances the prospects of the light-square bishop, it cre-
ates a half-open file to attack with the rooks, and it cre-
ates an isolated, backward pawn on d6 after the exchange
c5xd6.[46]
For example, in the diagram on the right, after the natural
but mistaken 10...0-0?! White can immediately realise
his strategic goal with 11.c5![47] Then if Black accepts the
temporary sacrifice after 11...Qxc5 12.Rc1 Qd6 13.Qxd6
cxd6 14.Rd1 White gets his pawn back and has created a
weak pawn in d7, while if Black declines the pawn he
has difficulties in developing his queenside (for exam-
ple 11...d6 might be followed by 12.cxd6 Qxd6 13.Qxd6
cxd6 and the pawn on d6 is weak).[47] Therefore Black
generally tries to hinder the c4–c5 push with moves like
d7–d6, b7–b6 or Rf8–d8 (if this creates a hidden vis-à-
vis between the Rd8 and the Qd2).[46]
Similarly, in the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 with
Pressure against the e3-pawn
4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3, after 6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 White
is saddled with doubled pawns in c3 and c4 that limit the
Pressure against the e4-square and the e3-pawn scope of his bishop pair. Hence the push c4–c5 can be
used to free the light-squared bishop and disrupt Black’s
[48]
In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after White has position.
moved f2–f4, the e3-pawn becomes a backward pawn on In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after 4...Bc5 5.e3
an open file. Black can then apply pressure on the e-file Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3 Ngxe5 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2
in general, against the e3-pawn and the e4-square in par- Nxf3+ Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Qd5 Qe7 14.Ne4 Ba7
ticular. Typical moves in this plan would include the ma- White has good reasons to push 15.c5.[49] This move
noeuvre Ne5–d7–f6, followed by putting the heavy pieces would close the diagonal of the Ba7. It would make it
on the e-file with Rf8–e8 and Qd8–e7 (see diagram at harder for Black to develop the Bc8 as pawn pushes like
right).[45] The Bc5 is already well placed to pressure the b7–b6 or d7–d6 may be answered respectively by cxb6 or
e3-pawn. Depending on circumstances, the Bc8 may be cxd6, creating a weak pawn for Black. Also, the prospects
involved either on b7 or on f5, in both cases to assert con- of the Be2 would be enhanced.
trol over the central e4-square.
This plan is viable only if certain conditions are met. The
d7-square must be available for the Ne5, so that it can Kieninger Trap
later transfer to f6. White should also not be able to eas-
ily advance the e3-pawn to e4, where it would be ade- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4
quately defended by the Nc3 and a possible Bf3.[45] Fi- 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.axb4 Nd3#
nally, White should not have the time to launch a quick The Kieninger Trap. If White plays 8.axb4 then 8...Nd3
attack on Black’s castled position with the pawn thrust mate.
f4–f5–f6.
The Kieninger Trap is named after Georg Kieninger who
Breakthrough with the c4–c5 push used it in an offhand game against Godai at Vienna in
1925.[50] It occurs in the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4
Rubinstein variation after 10.Qxd2. White is ready to 4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3. The
push the c4-pawn. For example, if 10...0-0?! then 11.c5! Bb4 is attacked but Black does not have to move it for
the moment, and instead both regains the gambit pawn
In the main lines the pawn push c4–c5 often brings posi- and sets a trap with 7...Ngxe5 (see diagram at right). Su-
tional gains to White. In the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 perficially, White seems to win a piece with 8.axb4??,
4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3, af- but that would be falling into the Kieninger Trap because
ter 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 (see di- it would allow 8...Nd3 mate; even after the exchange
agram at right) White gets the bishop pair and a space 8.Nxe5 Nxe5, the threat of ...Nd3 mate remains and in-
advantage. In order to build up on these potential advan- directly defends the Bb4 from capture.
tages, the most common plan is to perform a minority A rare variant has also occurred in a miniature in the
attack on the queenside, with the goal of performing Fajarowicz variation, after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
the pawn advance c4–c5 in favourable conditions.[46] 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Qa4+
286 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

Nc6 8.a3 Nc5 9.dxc7 Qe7! when White, trying to save Line 4...Bc5 with a2–a3
his queen, fell into 10.Qd1 Nd3 mate.[51]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.a3
After 6.a3
12.5.4 Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3

The Adler variation 4.Nf3 The opinion of the move 6.a3 has gradually shifted from
being the main continuation to being a possible continu-
ation, then down to its present status of being considered
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 a mistake. The threat to push b2–b4 must be taken seri-
The Adler variation is named after the game Adler– ously by Black, who typically answers 6...a5. But in the
Maróczy, played at the 1896 Budapest tournament.[52][53] 1980s it was discovered that the push a7–a5 was actually a
White is ready to return the e5-pawn in order to develop very useful one for Black, as it allows the Ra8 to be devel-
his pieces on their best squares, i.e. the d5-square for the oped along the sixth rank. Meanwhile, the push a2–a3 is
Nb1, the f3-square for the Ng1 and the a1–h8 diagonal less useful for White, as he will not be able to easily push
for the Bc1. b2–b4. As Tseitlin puts it, “the point is that 6...a5 fits into
the plan of attacking White’s kingside, whereas 6.a3 does
Black can try the minor line 4...Nc6 that delays the de- little in the way of defending it”.[55] Thus if White does
velopment of its dark-square bishop, to develop it along not find a clear way to make good use of his move a2–a3,
the a1–h8 diagonal instead of the a3–f8 diagonal, de- it may turn out to be a critical waste of tempo.[56][57]
pending on the circumstances. But the main line is
4...Bc5 to attack the f2-pawn, forcing 5.e3, blocking inAfter the topical moves 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 Re8 9.Nc3
White’s bishop on c1, so that after 5...Nc6 White will Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 Black has regained the in-
vested pawn. White has a space advantage in the cen-
not have enough pieces to protect his e5-pawn in the long
tre and can initiate pressure here or on the queenside by
run. Placing the bishop on the c5-square also has subtler
points, as Tseitlin explains:[54] pawn pushes like b3–b4 and c4–c5 (possibly supported
by a knight on the d5-square). Meanwhile, the white
king lacks defenders so Black can start a pieces-driven
At first sight the bishop on c5 lacks attack with the rook lift 11...Ra6 (see section "Budapest
prospects, being held at bay by the pawn on rook"). The stem game continued with 12.Nd5 Rh6
e3, and is insecure in view of the threat to ex- 13.Bd4 d6 14.Ra2 Bf5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 and Black won
change it by Nc3–a4/e4. In reality, posting the in 26 moves.[58] To avoid such an unfavourable devel-
bishop here has a deep strategic significance. opment, White players have changed the move-order to
It holds up the advance of the e- and the f- keep the Bc1 on its original square as long as possible, so
pawns (assuming the white bishop will go to that it can help the defence. Thus, the typical move-order
b2), and thereby secures e5 as a future knight became 7.b3 0-0 8.Nc3 Re8 9.Be2 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5
outpost, which in turn restricts the activity of 11.0-0 when 11...Ra6 would be met with 12.Nd5 Rh6
both White’s bishops. As to the exchanging 13.e4 immediately attacking the maveric rook. So Black
threat, the bishop may conveniently retreat on usually opts for 11...d6, forgetting about the Ra8–a6–h6
a7 or f8, or even in some cases remain on c5 manoeuvre. After 12.Bb2 ECO considers the situation as
with support from a pawn on b6. favourable to White, but Tseitlin thinks Black still has a
lot of possibilities (e.g. the other rook lift Re8–e6–h6),
[59]
After 5...Nc6, is 6.a3 a promising queenside attack, or so that “the struggle still lies ahead”.
just a loss of tempo?

Line 4...Bc5 without a2–a3

An important theoretical decision for White is to choose
whether to play a2–a3. While this move protects the b4 After 9...Nxe5, shall White attack in the centre or on the
square and threatens the pawn advance b2–b4, it encour- kingside?
ages Black’s rook lift Ra8–a6–h6. As Lalic puts it:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6

It was not so long ago that 8.a3, with the ob-
vious intention of expanding with b2–b4, was
the standard move. However, after Black re-
sponds with the logical a7–a5, it became ap-
parent in tournament practice that the inclusion
of these moves is in fact in Black’s favour, as it
gives his queen’s rook access into play via the
a6-square.
By refraining from the advance a2-a3 White tries to gain
a tempo on the lines of the previous section, making it
more difficult for Black to initiate the Re8–e6–h6 or Ra8–
a6–h6 lifts. After the moves 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3
Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 White has tried two different plans.
The older one sees White attack in the centre with moves
like b2–b3, Bc1–b2, Qd1–d5, Nc3–e4 and c4–c5. White
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP
gets an important space advantage in the centre, but Black
can attack the kingside with rook lifts. After 10.b3 a5
White can try to capture the Bc5 with 11.Na4 or 11.Ne4,
one point being that the retreat 11...Ba7 would lock the
Ra8 because Black has not played Ra8–a6 already. Lalic
still thinks 11...Ba7 is the right move after 11.Ne4 due to
the importance of the a7–g1 diagonal, but Black can also
reroute the bishop with 11...Bf8 and “White has no ob-
vious path to even a minute advantage”.[60] After 11.Na4
Black can also simply react by 11...b6 when the loss of
the bishop pair is compensated by the semi-open b-file
and improved control of the central squares.[61] Tseitlin
considers that after the exchange on c5 Black has the bet-
ter position.[62] Hence the main continuation is 11.Bb2,
keeping the knight jumps for later. Then the most com-
mon plan for Black is a rook lift: the plan Ra8–a6–
h6 was tried in the much-commented game Åkesson–
Tagnon (Berlin Open 1984). Black duly won, but after
the game continuation 11...Ra6 12.Qd5! Qe7 13.Ne4
Ba7 14.c5 Rg6 15.Rac1 Bb8 16.f4 authors do not agree
on which side had the advantage. Borik and Tseitlin
both consider White to have a positional advantage, with
Tseitlin recommending instead 15...Nc6!, with danger-
ous threats.[63][64] However Lalic writes of 15...Bb8, “it
is true that the bishop pair looks a bit pathetic lined up on
the back rank just now, but there is no way to stop them
breaking out later”.[41]
The second plan for White, unveiled by Spassky in 1990,
aims at a kingside blitzkrieg with moves like Kg1–h1, f2–
f4, Be2–d3 and Qd1–h5. In the original game Black did
not fathom White’s idea, so that after 10.Kh1 a5?! 11.f4
Nc6 12.Bd3 d6 13.Qh5! h6 14.Rf3 Black’s pieces were
ill-placed to counter White’s attack.[65] A more princi-
pled plan for Black is to react in the centre, specifically
targeting the backward e3-pawn and e4-square. After
10.Kh1 d6 11.f4 Nd7! 12.Bd3 Nf6 13.Qf3 Ng4 14.Nd1
f5! and Black has succeeded in inhibiting White’s e3–e4
expansion .[66] As Black was doing fine with the 11.f4
move-order, White has been searching for a new path
with 10.Kh1 d6 11.Na4!? b6! 12.Bd2 a5 13.Nxc5 bxc5
14.f4 Nd7 15.Bf3 when Jeremy Silman prefers White.[67]
White has even dared the immediate 10.f4 Nc6 11.Bd3
when it is extremely dangerous for Black to take the of-
fered e3-pawn, as White gets a fierce kingside attack for
free.[57]
12.5.5 Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4
The Rubinstein variation 4.Bf4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4
This move sequence is called the “Rubinstein variation”
in reference to the famous game Rubinstein–Vidmar
(Berlin 1918) when 4.Bf4 was first employed.[53][68] Var-
ious authors consider this move to be the most dangerous
for Black.[57] It aims to answer 4...Bc5 with 5.e3 with-
287
out blocking the Bc1, contrary to what happens in the
Adler variation 4.Nf3. Another point is that in the Adler
variation White faces the risk of a strong attack against
his kingside (see section "Budapest rook"), while in the
4.Bf4 variation this is seldom the case because the Bf4
is well placed to protect White’s kingside. On the other
hand, the early development of the bishop means that
White is more vulnerable to the check Bf8–b4+, the b2-
pawn is not defended, and in some rare cases the Bf4 can
become subject to attack.
Apart from the sideline 4...g5, the main line continues
with both players developing their pieces around the e5-
pawn with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ when White has an im-
portant choice between the moves 6.Nc3 and 6.Nbd2,
each leading to extremely different play. With 6.Nc3
White acquiesces to the breakup of his queenside pawns
in return for a material advantage of one pawn, the bishop
pair and active play in the centre. With 6.Nbd2 White
gives back the gambited pawn to keep a healthy pawn
structure and acquire the bishop pair. After 6.Nbd2 Qe7
White generally plays 7.a3 to force the immediate ex-
change of bishop for knight, gaining the bishop pair, a
spatial advantage and chances for a minority attack on
the queenside. White can also try 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 to
win a tempo over the 7.a3 variation, though he may end
up with the exchange at d2 made in less favourable cir-
cumstances, or not at all. The maverick gambit 6...f6 also
exists.[69]
Sideline 4...g5
After 4...g5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5
The sideline 4...g5!? was not well regarded at the end
of the 20th century.[notes 3] It weakens several squares—
particularly f5 and h5—as they cannot be covered by the
g-pawn any more. White can try to exploit these weak-
nesses with the manoeuvres Bf4–d2–c3 (pressure along
the diagonal a1–h8), Ng1–e2–g3–h5 (pressure against
the squares f6 and g7) and h2–h4 (to open the h-file).
Nonetheless, the 4...g5 line has found new supporters in
recent years thanks to black wins against both 5.Bg3 and
5.Bd2.[70][71]
For years, the reaction 5.Bg3 was not well considered, be-
cause the retreat does not make the most out of Black’s
provocative fourth move; as Tseitlin points out, “the
bishop is in danger of staying out of play for a long
time”.[72] But later Lalic found that 5.Bg3 was “just as
effective” as 5.Bd2.[73] Black concentrates on capturing
the e5-pawn while White tries to get an advantage from
the weakening of the black kingside. After the typical
moves 5...Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5
9.e3 d6 Lalic considers the best try to be 10.c5!, sacri-
ficing a pawn to weaken Black’s control on the e5-square
and expose the black king further. White has also tried
288 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

to quickly open the h-file with 7.h4 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 ter 11.Qd3 0-0 12.g3 d6 13.Bg2 Black should switch to a
9.e3 but after 9...g4! Black succeeds in keeping the file materialistic mode with 13...Qxa2.[82]
closed.[74] In the other line 8...f6 Black does not want to decentralise
The alternative to 5.Bg3 is 5.Bd2 to place the bishop on his queen and prefers to concentrate on active piece play
the wide-open diagonal a1–h8, after which “White can in the centre. After 9.exf6 Nxf6, 10.Qd1, 10.Qd2 and
expect a safe advantage”.[73] Then according to Lalic, de- 10.Qd3 are all possible, but each has its drawbacks: on
laying the recapture with 5...Bg7 6.Bc3 Nc6 7.e3 Ngxe5 d1 the queen is not developed, on d3 it is exposed to
is not correct as White can gain an advantage by 8.h4 or Bc8–f5 and on d2 it is exposed to Nf6–e4. Lalic con-
8.Qh5,[75] so the immediate 5...Nxe5 is better. For some siders 10.Qd3 to be the main move, qualifies 10.Qd1 as
time 6.Bc3 was well considered because Black had prob- a “respectable option”, but considers 10.Qd2 as “inaccu-
lems dealing with various positional threats, but the cor- rate”. Meanwhile, Black will try to create counterplay by
rect way for Black was found in 5...Nxe5 6.Bc3 Qe7 7.e3 attacking either the weak c4-pawn, or the kingside with
Rg8! 8.Nf3 Nbc6 9.Be2 d6 10.Nd4 Bd7 11.b4 g4 with g7–g5 and h7–h5. In both cases a key possibility is the
good counterplay for Black on the kingside.[76] White’s move Nf6–e4 that centralises the knight, attacks the weak
efforts then switched to 6.Nf3 to open the e-file, some- c3-pawn, controls the c5-square and supports the g7–g5
thing that Black cannot really avoid, as 6...Bg7 7.Nxe5 thrust.
Bxe5 8.Bc3 would leave an advantage to White.[75] For
example 8...Qe7 9.Bxe5 Qxe5 10.Nc3 d6 11.e3 and
Black is at a loss for an equalising line,[77] White’s ad- Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3
vantage consisting in his ability to install his knight on
the strong d5-square and to attack the weakened Black’s After 7.a3 White will win the bishop pair.
kingside with the advance h2–h4. It is better for Black to
continue with 6...Nxf3+ 7.exf3 when both 7...h5? and
7...Bg7 would fail to 8.Qe2+, so Black must try 7...d6
8.Qe2+ Be6 instead.[75] On the way till 10...d6 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4
4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3
The Bb4 is attacked but Black can play 7...Ngxe5 to get
Line 6.Nc3
the gambitted pawn back, as 8.axb4?? would allow the
Kieninger trap 8...Nd3 mate (see the section "Kieninger
Black must choose between 8...Qa3 and 8...f6. trap"). Now White is more or less forced to exchange
a pair of knights with 8.Nxe5 Nxe5.[notes 4] White still
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ cannot win a piece with 9.axb4?? Nd3# or 9.Bxe5?!
6.Nc3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Qxe5, so he usually plays 9.e3 in order
This is the only important line in the Budapest where to protect the c4-pawn and defuse the mating threat, so
Black is not ensured of regaining his sacrificed pawn. that now Black is obliged to move his Bb4. As 9...Bd6
Black does best to immediately exchange the Nc3 with would misplace the bishop and 9...Ba5?? would lose the
bishop to 10.b4 Bb6 11.c5, Black usually plays 9...Bxd2+
6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 as otherwise White gets a small posi-
tional advantage simply by avoiding the doubled pawns 10.Qxd2.[notes 5]
(see the section "Advantages of ...Bb4+").[78][79] Then After 10.Qxd2, Tseitlin explains that “opening manuals
Black can put pressure on the e5-pawn with 7...Qe7 assess this position as favourable to White on the basis of
when White’s only possibility to keep the pawn is 8.Qd5. the bishop pair. However, considering the closed nature
White threatens to ease the pressure with the move h2– of the position, White faces substantial difficulties in the
h3 that would force the Ng4 to the unfavourable square realisation of this nominal advantage.”[83] Black has not
h6, so Black’s only possibilities to sustain the initiative a lot of things to be proud of as there are no targets in
are 8...Qa3 and 8...f6. White’s camp, but can put up a lot of resistance thanks to
The line 8...Qa3 puts pressure on the white queenside small assets. Black’s Ne5 is strongly centralised, attacks
pawns, pressure that may later be intensified with Nf6– the c4-pawn, and restricts the Bf1 from moving to the nat-
e4. The black queen also gains access to the a5-square, ural squares d3 and f3. Moreover, exchanging the knight
from where it puts pressure on the e1–a5 diagonal aimed with Bxe5 is not appealing for White, since that would
towards the white king. After 9.Rc1 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 mean losing the advantage of the bishop pair. Also, the
11.Qd2 d6 12.Nd4 0-0 we reach the position of the fa- Bc8 can sometimes become better than its counterpart
mous game between Rubinstein and Vidmar, when Ru- the Bf1, if it makes it to the good squares b7 or c6 while
binstein erred with 13.e3? and later lost.[80] After the the Bf1 remains restricted by the Ne5.
better 13.f3 the correct method for Black is to target the This explains the most natural plans for both sides. White
c4-pawn with the regrouping Ne5/Qc5.[81] Hence Lalic will try a minority attack on the queenside, in order to in-
thinks 11.Qd2 is inappropriate and gives Black excellent crease its space advantage and to create some weaknesses
counterplay, and prefers 11.Qd3 or even 11.Qd1!? Af- in the black pawns (e.g. an isolated pawn or a backward
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP 289

pawn). So White will try to use the advances b2–b4 or Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
c4–c5 in good conditions, supported by the queen and the
rooks on the c-file and the d-file. On the other hand, Black After 7.e3, White concentrates on castling.
will try to keep the position closed, most importantly by
keeping the c4-pawn where it is in order to keep the Bf1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+
at bay. This can be achieved by moves like b7–b6 and d7–
6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
d6, and sometimes the manoeuvre Ne5–d7–f8–e6. The
first move by Black has to be 10...d6! because otherwise In this variation White tries to avoid the move a2–a3 in
White plays 11.c5! and gets a clear advantage immedi- order to gain a tempo over the 7.a3 variation. After the
ately. For example 10...b6? loses a pawn to 11.Qd5 Nc6 standard moves 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 followed
12.Bxc7, and 10...0-0?! is bad because of 11.c5! Qxc5? by 10.0-0 it is Black’s last chance to exchange the Bb4 for
12.Rc1 Qe7 13.Rxc7 and White is winning already.[47] the Nd2. The game will take an entirely different struc-
ture depending on whether Black gives up the bishop pair
International Master Timothy Taylor has suggested an al-
or tries to keep it.
ternative for Black on move 9. He regards 9...Bxd2+ as
inferior, arguing that “the strong black bishop is traded Lalic thinks the strategies in which Black gives up the
for the inoffensive knight, and white gets the long-term bishop pair (by exchanging its Bb4 for the Nd2) for noth-
advantage of the two bishops in a semi-open game”.[84] ing are a mistake. He does not like the strategy to re-
Taylor instead advocates 9...Bc5, when Black stands well treat the Bb4 in d6 either, because they are too drawish.
after 10.b4 Bd4! (11.exd4?? Nd3#) 11.Rb1 d6 12.Be2 He recommends the strategy to retreat the bishop in c5,
Bf5 13.Rb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 (14.exd4 Nxf4 15.Re3? Nxg2+ and maintain its position there with the help of the a7–a5
[91]
wins; 14.Bxd6 exd6 15.exd4 Nf4 16.g3 Bc2! wins mate- pawn advance.
[85]
rial) Bf6; 10.Ne4 Ng6; 10.Nb3 Bd6; or 10.Be2 d6.

Black gives up the bishop pair When Black opts for

Battle for the push c4–c5 After 10...d6 White wants
to push c4–c5 to free his light-square bishop.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+
6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+
10.Qxd2 d6
After 10...d6! White can try (and has tried) about any
move that supports the aforementioned plan. In particu-
lar, White has to choose if he wants to start active opera-
tions on the queenside immediately (e.g. Rc1, Qc3, c5),
or if he wants to finish his development first (with Be2
and 0-0). The immediate 11.c5!? is a possible pawn sac-
rifice in order to open some diagonals for the bishops. As
Lalic points out, “after 11...dxc5 Black’s knight on e5 has
lost its support and therefore all tactical motifs based on
Qd5 and Bb5+ must be carefully checked”.[86] White gets
a powerful attack for his pawn but nothing decisive. The
same idea can be tried with the preparatory 11.Rc1, and
after 11...0-0 12.c5!? dxc5 13.Qd5 Ng6 14.Bg3 White
should be reminded that he has not finished his devel-
opment with 14...Qf6! and a counter-attack on the b2-
pawn.[87][88] Playing Black, Svidler chose a different path
with 11...b6 but his opponent Lesiège nevertheless sacri-
ficed the pawn with 12.c5! bxc5 13.b4 0-0 14.bxc5 Bb7
15.f3 and Svilder chose to destroy his own pawn structure
with 15...dxc5!? to activate his pieces and make use of
the d-file.[89] The most popular move is 11.Be2, where
White delays his queenside play until he has achieved
castling.[90] It also gives Black more time to organise a
defence on the queenside with b7–b6, either now or after
11...0-0.
10...Bxd2, he runs the risk to end up a tempo down over
the 7.a3 variation and to be soon unable to meet White’s
positional threats on the queenside. White can avoid the
push a2–a3 and continue with the standard plans of the
7.a3 variation.[92] However, everything is not that bad for
Black. First, to implement his plan White has to concen-
trate on development (9.Be2, 10.0-0) before he turns his
attention to the queenside. That means Black has more
time to organise his play than in the 7.a3 variation, no-
tably to attempt a blockade of the c5-square. Moreover,
as White does not put immediate pressure on Black’s po-
sition, Black is not compelled to castle rapidly and he can
keep his king in the centre for a longer time, or even castle
queenside. Hence Lalic note that “White has not wasted
time with a2–a3, but in fact it is not so easy to capitalise
on this extra tempo.”[93]
A possibility for Black is to develop his light-square
bishop rapidly, by prioritising the moves b7–b6 and Bc8–
b7 over castling and d7–d6. The game Solozhenkin–
Stiazhkin (Leningrad 1990) continued with 9...b6 10.0-
0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 12.c5 bxc5 13.Qa5 d6 14.Bxe5
dxe5 15.Rfc1 and Moskalenko assesses this position as
better for White;[94] Lalic suggests that 13...Ng6 is an
improvement.[95] In the game Gausel–Reite (Norwegian
Team Championship 1991), after the same 9.Be2 b6
10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 Black introduced a highly
original plan by avoiding the natural advance d7–d6, and
instead blocked a white c5-push by playing ...c5 himself.
The game continued 12.Qc3 f6 13.b4 c5!? and Lalic
was “deeply impressed by this plan, which really spoils
all of White’s fun”. The c4-pawn is never allowed to ad-
vance, so that the Be2 is durably restricted. The Bf4 is ob-
structed by the Ne5, that cannot be easily removed. The
weakness of the d7-pawn is not a worry as it can be pro-
290 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

tected by Bb7–c6 if necessary.[93] pawn without protection. The correct plan for White
was shown by Gleizerov who played 8.e3 Qxb2 9.Be2
d6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nb3 Qf6 12.c5! to open the a2–g8 di-
Black keeps the bishop pair After 10.0-0 d6 11.Nb3 agonal that was weakened precisely by the gambit move
6...f6. The move 11.Nb3 is not only useful to support
After 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Black can avoid the immediate the c4–c5 push, but also to exchange the knight against
exchange of his Bb4 against the Nd2 in several ways. Black’s dark-squared bishop after a possible a2–a3 forc-
The first one, resurrected and elaborated by the grand- ing the retreat Bb4–c5.[101] As Lalic puts it, “I doubt if
master Pavel Blatny, is to exchange the Bb4 for the Bf4. Black has a satisfactory answer to White’s play in this
This can be achieved via 10...Ng6 11.Bg3 (11.Bxc7?? d6 game”.[102]
loses a piece) 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6. White still has
possibilities to play for an advantage due to his more ad-
12.5.6 Alekhine variation 3...Ng4 4.e4
vanced development, his space advantage on the queen-
side and the possibility to install his knight on the good
The Alekhine variation 4.e4
square d5. Taylor considers this Black’s best line, stating
that Black has not given White the bishop pair, nor weak-
ened his pawn structure, and should be able to gradually 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4
equalize.[96] This variation is named after Alekhine thanks to his wins
The other possibility for Black is to keep his Bb4 as long in the games Alekhine–Rabinovic (Baden Baden, 1925)
as possible, exchanging it against the white knight only and Alekhine–Seitz (Hastings, 1926).[53][103][notes 6]
in favourable circumstances. A couple of attempts have White does not try to keep its material advantage (the
been done with this in mind, with subtle variations along e5-pawn) and concentrates on establishing a strong pawn
the moves a7–a5, b7–b6 and d7–d6. Against the mun- center and space advantage. A controversial point is
dane 10...d6 White can continue with 11.Nb3 (see dia- whether the typical black manoeuvre Bf8–b4–xc3 is
gram at right) to play on the queenside against the ex- advantageous for Black (as it saddles White with doubled
posed Bb4, or 11.Nb1 to recycle the knight on the ideal pawns) or for White (as it reinforces his centre). Lalic
d5-square. Another idea is the immediate 10...a5, to have thinks both, considering 6...Bb4+ to be a bad move after
the d6-square for the bishop, inhibit the b2–b4 push and 4...Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Nf3,[104] but a good one after
have the possible a5–a4 pawn advance if the white knight 4...Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Be3.[105] After 4.e4 the main line
moves to b3. In the game Mikhalevski–Chabanon (Bad is 4...Nxe5 5.f4 when Black has an important choice
Endbach 1995)[97] Black kept the bishop with 11.Nb3 a4 to make about where to move the Ne5. The retreat
12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd4 Bc5 14.Nb5 d6 15.Nc3 Ng6 16.Bg3 to the queenside with 5...Nec6 is considered best,[106]
f5 and had dynamic play.[98] while the retreat to the kingside with 5...Ng6 is probably
playable.[107]
Taylor considers 4...Nxe5 inferior, recommending in-
Gambits 5.Nbd2 d6 and 6.Nbd2 f6 stead a rarely played idea of Richard Réti, 4...h5!
(Taylor’s exclamation point). Then 5.Nf3 would al-
The gambit 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 d6 low 5...Bc5, while Taylor suggests meeting 5.Be2 with
5...Nc6! and 5.f4 with 5...Bc5 with quick development
With 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 d6 (see diagram at right) Black compensating for the lost pawn. He considers the main
wants to open the diagonal a1–h8 for his queen. Af- line to be 4...h5 5.h3 Nxe5 6.Be3 Bb4+, with good play
ter 6.exd6 Qf6 White can react to the attack on his Bf4 for Black.[108]
in several ways, the best one being 7.Nh3 to develop a
piece and protect both the Bf4 and the f2-pawn. It also
helps that the Bf4 is still guarding the Nd2, so that af- Line 5...Nec6
ter 7...Qxb2? there is not the threat of winning the ex-
change (8...Bxd2+ would be answered by 9.Bxd2) and After 5.f4 Nec6 6.Be3
White can repel Black’s attack with 8.Rb1 Qa3 9.Rb3
Qa5 10.dxc7 Nc6 11.a3! Be7 12.e3.[99] Instead, Black 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6
must play energetically with 7...Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Bxh3 9.g3 The Knight on c6 is safer than on g6, and is well-placed
Bxf1 10.dxc7!? Nc6 11.Rxf1 and here Lalic recom- as part of a general strategy to control the central dark
mends 11...0-0 12.Kg2 Rfe8.[100] squares. It can go to d4 while the other Knight can
The other gambit, 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 f6 7.exf6 go to c5 via a6 or d7. After 6.Nf3 Bc5 White has
Qxf6, is much riskier, as Black weakens his kingside difficulties castling short, because the plan to exchange
and does not open a diagonal for his Bc8. Black tries the dark-squared bishops with Bd3/Qe2/Be3 can be met
to take advantage of the fact White has moved his dark- by Bg4/Nd4 to muddy the waters.[109] As Lalic points
squared bishop away from the queenside, leaving the b2- out:[110]
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP
White can no longer castle kingside and
will usually have to go the other way. How-
ever, this is rather slow and gives Black time to
try to undermine the white centre. To this end
Bc8–g4 often comes in handy, in order to pin
the white knight on f3 against the white queen.
Note that Black should wait until his opponent
has wasted a tempo with Qe2.
The main continuation 6.Be3 controls the a7–g1 diagonal after 6...Bc5! 7.b4?! Bxg1! 8.Rxg1 0-0! 9.Qf3 d6
and is considered to be the best reply.[111] If Black wants 10.g4 a5 11.b5 Nd7 12.Ra2 Nc5 when Black’s supe-
to contest the c5-square for his Bf8 he can try 6...Na6,[112] rior pawn structure and well-positioned Nc5 gives him
but most games continue with 6...Bb4+. Here the best the advantage.[121] That leaves White with the choice be-
reply for White is controversial.[notes 7]
After 7.Nc3 Black has the zwischenzug 7...Qh4+ 8.g3
Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qe7 so that the diagonal a8–h1 is weak-
ened before Black develops the Bc8 to the b7-square.
The queen on the e7-square is well placed to pressure
the e4-pawn. However, as most of Black’s pieces are on
the queenside, continuing with pawn pushes like f7–f5 is
probably too weakening, as Alekhine demonstrated in his
game against Seitz in 1925.[113] So Black does best to at-
tack with pieces, possibly with the setup b6/Nc5/Bb7/0-
0-0.[114] In that case Tseitlin considers that with a knight
on c5 the move d7–d6 should be avoided if Black has to
respond to the capture Bxc5 by dxc5, because the white
pawns in e4 and f4 would have too much leeway.[115]
After 7.Nd2 Qe7 8.a3 Lalic considers 8...Qxe4 should be
avoided, e.g. the continuation 9.Kf2 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 0-0
11.Nf3 d6 12.Re1 gives White several tempi against the
black queen.[116] After the better 8...Bc5 9.Bxc5 Qxc5
10.Qf3 Lalic recommends 10...a5.[117] The introduction
of the intermediate 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Qe7 does not change
Lalic’s opinion, as after 9.Bg2 Na6 10.a3 Bc5 11.Bxc5
Nxc5 12.b4 Ne6 the bishop was well placed on g2 and
Black experienced difficulties developing the Bc8.[118]
But Lalic does not mention the game Pomar–Heidenfeld
cited by Borik, in which Black played the advance a7–a5
to restrict the white advance b2–b4, and achieved equality
after 9.Bg2 a5 10.Ne2 Na6.[119] Instead, he recommends
7...d6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Bd3 and now the same development
as in Pomar’s game:[120]
9...a5 and 10...Na6 deserves attention,
when White’s movements on the queenside are
more restricted and the black knight will be
able to settle on the c5-square without being
kicked by the thematic b2–b4. It may appear
that we have reached the same position elab-
orated in previous games a tempo down for
Black, since he has committed his bishop to b4
and will later drop back to the c5-square in-
stead of heading there at once. However, the
white knight is less actively placed on d2 and in
fact this fully compensates Black for the slight
loss of time.
291
Line 5...Ng6
After 5.f4 Ng6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6
The Knight on g6 puts the f4-pawn under pressure, but
may be embarrassed later by the pawn thrust f4–f5. Now
6.a3, an attempt to deny squares from the Bf8 by con-
tinuing with b2–b4 or Bc1–e3, does not achieve its goal
tween 6.Nf3 and 6.Be3.
The move 6.Nf3 controls the e5-square in order to pre-
pare the push f4–f5. Unlike after 5...Nec6, White does
not have to fear 6...Bc5?!, which encounters difficulties
after 7.f5! Nh4 8.Ng5!, when the black knight is already
in danger of being lost to Qd1–g4 or Qd1–h5.[122] In-
stead Black must react quickly with 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 when
he can adopt a normal setup with d6/0-0/Nc6/b6 or act
boldly with 7...Qf6 threatening both the Nc3 and the f4-
pawn.[123] One point in favour of 7...Qf6 is that after 8.e5
Qb6 the black queen prevents White from castling short
and is well placed if White castles long.[124]
The move 6.Be3 takes the a7–g1 diagonal from Black’s
Bf8 and may in some lines prepare the long castle. Af-
ter the mandatory 6...Bb4+ White can opt for 7.Nd2
to avoid having doubled pawns, but he must be pre-
pared to sacrifice a pawn after 7...Qe7 8.Kf2!? Bxd2
9.Qxd2 Qxe4 10.Bd3 with piece activity for the pawn
deficit,[125] because the normal defence 8.Bd3? runs
into 8...Qd6! and both the Bd3 and the f4-pawn are
attacked.[126] White does not need, however, bother too
much about the doubled pawns and after 7.Nc3 Bxc3+
8.bxc3 a peaceful black player might choose the quiet
8...b6!? followed by a normal development with d6/0-
0/Bb7/Nd7/Re8/Nc5.[107] Instead of 8...b6 a more ad-
venturous black player could choose 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 f5!?
as indicated by Borik, Tseitlin and Lalic,[107][127][128] but
in his more recent book Moskalenko thinks “this move
complicates the game too much”.[129] If the black player
is neither peaceful nor aggressive, Lalic proposes an alter-
native with 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Qd2 and only now that
Black has his king safe shall he unleash 10...f5!?, when
“it is not so easy for White to meet [10...f5] as the two
main responses, 11.e5 and 11.exf5, allow Black promis-
ing chances with 11...d6 and 11...Nxf4 respectively”.
12.5.7 Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4
The Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4
The line 3...Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 The Fajarowicz variation is
292
said to have its origins in the chess circles from Leipzig, 12.5.8 Other possibilities
with the first important game being H.Steiner–Fajarowicz
at the 1928 Wiesbaden tournament.[130][131] In this varia- Line 3...Ng4 4.e3
tion, Black makes no immediate effort to regain the gam-
bit pawn, preferring to concentrate on active piece play After 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nh3
and tactical tricks.[notes 8]
The move 4.a3 allows White to avoid the annoying bishop
check on b4, the also annoying knight jump to b4, and
prepares Qc2 to undermine Black’s knight. Both Lalic
and de Firmian consider it to be White’s best move,[132]
with de Firmian assessing it as leading to a large advan-
tage for White.[133] Lalic considers 4...b6!? to be the best
answer, one point being that Qd1–c2, so effective in most
of the other lines, can be met by Bc8–b7. After 5.Nd2
Bb7 6.Qc2 Lalic gives 6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 a5! when the
black bishops will be excellently placed on the b7- and c5-
squares.[134] Lalic recommends 6.Nf3 instead,[135] while
de Firmian continues by 5.Nf3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.Qc2
with a large advantage for White.[133][136]
The move 4.Nf3 develops a piece and covers the sensi-
tive d2-square. After 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.a3 Black
can easily get confused by the move-order. The natural
6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qc3 transposes
in the same position as after 5.Bd2, but White can also
try 6...Nxd2 7.axb4! Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 Nxe5 9.Rg1 Qe7
10.Ra3! with a strong initiative.[137] White can even re-
tain his bishop with 6...Nxd2 7.Nxd2 and now Borik rec-
ommends 7...Bf8 with difficult play for Black as he is not
certain to gain his pawn back.[138] To avoid these pos-
sibilities Lalic advises the move-order 6...Bxd2+ 7.Bxd2
Nxd2 8.Qxd2 Qe7, but does not mention the possibility
of White answering 6...Bxd2+ with 7.Nxd2. A possible
improvement for Black (after 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2) would be
5...d5 with compensation for the pawn in all lines.[139]
The line 4.Qc2 immediately attacks the Ne4, as a retreat
by Black would effectively surrender his temporary lead
in development, which is the compensation for the sacri-
ficed pawn. Black must continue to develop while trying
to keep the Ne4 on its square, but that is by no means
easy. Borik thinks 4.Qc2 is the move “that gives Black
the most problems to solve”,[140] but Lalic does not agree
at all, stating that the reply “4...Bb4+ [....] followed by
d7–d5 ensures Black a rapid development and plenty of
counterplay. It is for this reason that 4.Qc2 is not on the
danger list”.[141] The reply 4...Bb4+ (see diagram at right)
pins the white pieces before deciding what to do with the
Ne4. White cannot reply 5.Bd2 as he would lose the
bishop pair and Black would easily regain the e5-pawn
with Nc6/Qe7/0-0/Re8. After 5.Nd2 this knight would
be misplaced and would block the Bc1, so Black could
open the game with 5...d5 in favourable circumstances.
Best for White is 5.Nc3 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Bd2 Nxd6 8.e4!
Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Bxe4 when Black has regained his pawn but
White has the bishop pair and possibilities of an attack on
the kingside.[142]
CHAPTER 12. TRAPS
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3
Apart from the main lines 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4, the
only significant other fourth move is 4.e3 to continue by
4...Nxe5 5.Nh3 (or the other move-order 4.Nh3 and 5.e3)
so that the white knight starts the journey Ng1–h3–f4–
d5 reach its ideal d5-square.[143] The idea with 4.e3 and
5.Nh3 was favorite of a leading Soviet coach and writer
Mikhail Shereshevsky, who wrote in his 1994 book The
Soviet Chess Conveyor that the line was first shown to him
by a strong correspondence player Donatas Lapienis.[144]
Black has tried to prevent White’s idea by the suitably
strange-looking move 5...Ng6, taking the f4-square from
the Nh3. Then White can develop along various setups,
the most active being 6.Qh5 with the possibility Nh3–
g5 in store to recycle the knight towards a more central
position.[145] Black can also ignore White’s intentions and
concentrate on his own play by placing the Nb8 on c5,
in order to put pressure on the d3-square. After 5...g6
6.Nf4 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.Nc3 Nbd7 10.Qd2 a5
11.b3 Nc5 the position of Black’s knights is secured and
Black’s position is similar to the Leningrad variation of
the Dutch Defence (once he has played f7–f5).[146] White
has no reason, however, to abandon the a1–h8 diagonal to
Black, and he can try 5...g6 6.Bd2 d6 7.Nf4 Bg7 8.Bc3 0-
0 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.Nd2 b6 and in one game White gained
a minimal edge.[147]
Other fourth moves after 3...Ng4
After 4.Qd4
A few other lines have been tried, with the outcome
varying from an immediate equality to a clear advantage
for Black. The cooling 4.e6 avoids complications and
heads for an equal endgame with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8,
Black’s loss of the right to castle being of no great im-
portance since queens have been traded. If Black wants
to avoid this early endgame, he can try 4...Bb4+ 5.Nc3
Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe6 and now the exchange of queens
would give a plus to Black, as the white queenside pawns
are isolated and doubled.[148] The greedy 4.f4 is weak be-
cause White neglects his development and weakens the
a7–g1 diagonal.[149][150][151][152] Black can immediately
exploit this with 4...Bc5, which threatens a fork on f2 and
forbids White’s castling; Black may later push d7–d6 to
open the centre, e.g. 5.Nh3 0-0 6.Nc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6
when Black has good squares for its pieces while White’s
castling is delayed.
Another reasonable-looking move is 4.Qd4 as it protects
the e5-pawn and attacks the Ng4. However, “the prob-
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP
lem for White in the Budapest is that natural moves often
lead to disaster”.[153] Best for Black is the gambit 4...d6
5.exd6 Nc6! 6.Qd1 Bxd6, when the natural 7.Nf3?? is
an error because of 7...Nxf2! 8.Kxf2 Bg3+ winning the
queen.[154] White must develop quietly with moves like
Nc3/Nf3/e3/Be2, allowing Black to find active positions
for his pieces with 0-0/Be6/Qe7/Rfd8, and preparing sev-
eral sacrificial ideas on e3 or f2, with excellent attacking
possibilities.[155] Similar to 4.Qd4 is 4.Qd5 when after
4...Nc6 White can seize the last opportunity to return to
calm waters with 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 which will transpose
in the Rubinstein line,[156] or he can try 5.Nf3 d6 6.exd6
Be6 7.d7+ Bxd7 when Black’s lead in development com-
pensates for the pawn.[157]
Declining the gambit
Declining the gambit is almost never seen in master play
because it promises White equality at best. After 3.d5?!
Bc5 White has prematurely blocked the central position,
giving the a7–g1 diagonal to Black for his bishop. In
this variation Black can either play on the queenside with
a plan like b5/Nb6/Bd7, or on the kingside with a plan 12.5.11 Notes
like Ne8/g6/Ng7/f5.[158] The shy 3.e3?! exd4 4.exd4
transposes into a line of the Exchange Variation of the [1] White’s plan involves pawn advances on the queenside,
French Defence with 4...d5, but Black can also develop
rapidly with 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 0-0.[159][160]
After 3.e4? Black gains a crushing attack via 3...Nxe4
4.dxe5 Bc5 5.Nh3 d6 6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6 0-0! 8.fxg7 Re8
9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Bxh3 11.gxh3 Qh4+. [161][162]
After
3.Bg5?! the game Ladmann–Tartakower (Scarborough
1929) continued with 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Be7 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Qd1 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.a3 d6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Qf6
11.Nbd2 Bf5 when both Tseitlin and Borik assess the
position as favourable for Black.[159][163] After 3.Nf3?! [2] Another example is in the game Döry–Tartakower (Vi-
the game Menchik–Tartakower (Paris 1929)[164] contin-
ued with 3...e4 4.Nfd2 d5 5.cxd5?! Qxd5 6.e3 Bb4 7.Nc3
Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 and White has problems developing his
kingside because of the potential weakness of g2.[163]
12.5.9 Illustrative games
Wu Shaobin–Nadanian, Singapore 2006
The following game was played between the Chinese GM
Wu Shaobin (White) and Armenian IM Ashot Nadanian
(Black) at Singapore 2006.[notes 10]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6
6.Be2 Ncxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.0-0 0-0 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2
a5 Preparing Dolfi Drimer’s rook manoeuvre Ra8–a6–
h6. Nadanian calls the pawn advance a7–a5 “the soul
of the Budapest Gambit”.[165] 11.Nc3 Ra6 12.Ne4 Ba7
13.Ng3 Qh4 14.Nf5 Qg5!? This was a new move,
before 14...Qe4 had been played. 15.Nd4 Rg6 16.g3
d5?! 18...Qh6 was stronger. 17.cxd5? White should
have played 17.Nb5! 17...Bh3! 18.Re1 Ng4 19.Nf3
293
Qxe3! Karolyi writes, “This shows Kasparov-like aggres-
sion and ingenuity.” 20.Bd4 Qxf2+!! 21.Bxf2 Bxf2+
22.Kh1 Bb6 23.Qb1? White should have defended with
23.Rf1! After 23...Ne3 24.Qd3 Bg2+ 25.Kg1 Bh3 White
can either repeat moves with 26.Kh1, or try 26.Nd4.
23...Nf2+ 24.Kg1 Rf6! Black has time to increase the
pressure. 25.b4! If 25.Qc2?, then 25...Ng4+ 26.Kh1
Bg2+! winning the queen. 25...a4! But not 25...Rxf3?
26.bxa5. 26.Ng5 Black can now force mate in 8 moves.
26...Ng4+! 27.Kh1 Bg2+!! “This is a marvellous move,
and it must have been such a thrill to play it on the board.”
(Karolyi). 28.Kxg2 Rf2+ 29.Kh3 Rxh2+ 30.Kxg4 h5+
31.Kf4 Be3+ 0–1[166]
12.5.10 See also
• List of chess openings
• List of chess openings named after places
• Indian Defence
resulting in the creation of a weak pawn for Black, then
winning this weak pawn. In this process all minor pieces
and queenside pawns are likely to disappear, so that White
ends up in a better ending with four pawns on the kingside
against three for Black, and only major pieces. This type
of ending has drawish tendencies, as Kaposztas demon-
strated in his games against Meleghegyi (Budapest 1981),
Petran (Budapest 1974) or Farago (Budapest 1975), all of
them drawn.
enna 1928), when after the initial opening sequence 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nf3 the answer
5...Bb4+?! is bad because White can play 6.Nbd2 to avoid
the exchange of bishops and gain a tempo later with a2–
a3, with a small plus (see Tseitlin 1992, p.13).
A third example is in the Adler variation after 1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 when Black should not play
4...Bb4+ because White can answer 5.Nbd2! Nc6 6.e3
Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3! Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 and White has
the better prospects. He has the bishop pair and he can
develop his Bc1 on the influential a1–h8 diagonal (see
Tseitlin 1992, p.69).
[3] Borik wrote that “the move 4...g5 creates irreparable
weaknesses in Black’s camp” (see Borik 1986, p.22),
while Tseitlin decided “this extravagant tactical stroke
weakens the kingside and, on general grounds alone, can-
not be good” (see Tseitlin 1992, p.41). Lalic warned that
“Black should be aware of the risks he is taking by playing
such a line” (see Lalic 1998, p.65).
[4] Black threatens both the c4-pawn and the Nf3, and 8.e3?!
Nxf3+ forces either 9.gxf3 with doubled pawns or 9.Qxf3
Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2, when White cannot castle any more.
White does not want to play 8.Bxe5?! either because it
294 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

would cede the bishop pair, which is the main source of [5] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Akiba Rubinstein”. Chess-
White’s hopes for an advantage in this line. Metrics.com.

[5] Note that for Black, the sequence 7...Ngxe5 8...Nxe5 [6] Tseitlin 1992, p.7
9...Bxd2+ is not only cunning, but also the best move-
order as another sequence would give White an early op- [7] Moskalenko 2007, p.9
portunity to realise the advantageous c4–c5 push (whose [8] Goldman, Warren (1994). Carl Schlechter ! Life and times
advantages are explained in the section "Breakthrough of the Austrian chess wizard. Caïssa Editions. p. 532.
with the c4–c5 push"). For example after 7...Bxd2+?! ISBN 0-939433-18-4.
8.Qxd2 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 White should not play the
usual 10.e3?! but should strive for more with the imme- [9] “Chess openings: Budapest Gambit (A52)". Chess-
diate 10.c5! as Black cannot take in c5 without losing the Games.com.
c7-pawn because of the possibilities Ra1–c1 and Qd2–c3
(see Lalic 1998, p.33). [10] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 4

[6] As cited by Tseitlin (p.21), Alekhine himself stated: [11] Moskalenko 2007, p.28

[12] Tseitlin 1992, p.9

This is considered with good reason to
be White’s best system against the Budapest [13] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 6
Gambit. White hands the pawn back, but in
return gains control of d5. Over the next few [14] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 7
moves, however, he has to play with extreme
precision, since otherwise his central pawn [15] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 8
position may become the object of a success-
[16] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 12
ful attack by Black.
[17] Moskalenko 2007, p.10
[7] While Borik does not express a preference, Alekhine con-
siders 7.Nc3! is “much stronger than 7.Nd2, for with the [18] For the game score, see this link.
knight threatening to jump to d5, Black will sooner or later
be forced to exchange his important dark-squared bishop [19] “Chess Opening Explorer”. ChessGames.com.
for it. The doubling of the c-pawns in these circumstances
[20] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Richard Réti”. ChessMet-
is not something White should fear.” Tseitlin agrees, stat-
rics.com.
ing that “after 7.Nd2 Black has no difficulty at all” (see
Tseitlin 1992, pp.31 & 119). On the other hand, Lalic [21] “Player profile: Richard Reti; Opening: Budapest Gambit
thinks 7.Nd2! is more accurate as “White avoids the dou- (A52)".
bled c-pawns that are likely to occur after 7.Nc3, and this
knight can later be deployed via the b3-square” (see Lalic [22] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Saviely Tartakower”.
1998, p.111). ChessMetrics.com.

[8] These tactical pitfalls include notably a Bb4+ at an annoy-
ing moment, a Qf6 with a double attack on b2 and f2,
(after 1...d6 2.exd6 Bxd6) the pseudo-sacrifice 3...Nxf2
4.Kxf2 Bg3+ and 5...Qxd1 winning White’s queen for two
minor pieces, and a concerted attack on the d3 square with
the setup Nc5/Bf5/Nb4 (once White has played e3).
[9] Black mates with either 31.Kf5 g6+ 32.Kf6 Bd4 mate, or
31. Kf3 Rf2 mate.
[10] An interactive move list and diagram for the game is at
A Budapest Gambit Assault. (Scroll down after reaching
that webpage. Also note the error there at move 31, since
the actual game ended 31.Kf4 Be3+.)
12.5.12 Footnotes
[1] Edward Winter,The Budapest Defence, Chess Notes
[2] Tseitlin 1992, p.8
[3] Oleinikov 2005, chapter 3
[4] Schlechter, Carl (1917). “Budapester Gambit”. Deutsche
Schachzeitung. 72: 242.
[23] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Efim Bogoljubow”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[24] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: José Capablanca”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[25] “Player profile: Savielly Tartakower; Opening: Budapest
Gambit (A52)". ChessGames.com.
[26] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Rudolf Spielmann”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[27] “Player profile: Rudolf Spielmann; Opening: Budapest
Gambit (A52)". ChessGames.com.
[28] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Nigel Short”. ChessMet-
rics.com.
[29] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Anatoly Karpov”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[30] “Chessmetrics Player Profile: Vassily Ivanchuk”. Chess-
Metrics.com.
[31] “Player profile: Nigel Short; Opening: Budapest Gambit
(A52)". ChessGames.com.
[32] “Top 100 Players July 2008”. FIDE.
12.5. KIENINGER TRAP 295

[33] “Player profile: Shakhriyar Mamedyarov; Opening: Bu- [63] Borik 1986, p.17
dapest Gambit (A52)". ChessGames.com.
[64] Tseitlin 1992, p.80
[34] Giffard, Nicolas (1993). Le guide des échecs (in French).
Robert Laffont. p. 307. ISBN 2-221-05913-1. [65] Tseitlin 1992, p.132
“Spassky–Illescas, Linares 1990”. ChessGames.com.
[35] Avrukh, Boris (2010). 1.d4 Volume Two. Quality Chess.
p. 91. ISBN 978-1-906552-33-6. [66] Lalic 1998, p.81
Alekseev–Bliumberg, Minsk 1993
[36] Lalic 1998, p.9
[67] Silman 2002
[37] Moskalenko 2008, p.159 “Beliavsky–Mohr, Portoroz 1997”. ChessGames.com.

[38] Lalic 1998, p.12 [68] Moskalenko 2007, p.15

[39] Lalic 1998, p.13 [69] Tseitlin 1992, p.126

“Rubinstein–Tartakower, Bad Kissingen 1928”. Chess-
[40] Moskalenko 2008, p.162 Games.com.

[41] Lalic 1998, p.76 [70] “Van Wely–Mamedyarov (Ciudad Real 2004)".

[42] Lalic 1998, p.10 [71] “Graf–Asik (Kavala 2007)".

[43] Moskalenko 2008, p.51–52 [72] Tseitlin 1992, p.41

[44] Tseitlin 1992, p.37 [73] Lalic 1998, p.65

[45] Lalic 1998, p.81 [74] Lalic 1998, p.67

Amura - Paglilla, Buenos Aires open 1995
[46] Moskalenko 2008, p.54
[75] Lalic 1998, p.66
[47] Lalic 1998, p.32 Kuraszkiewicz–Bartsch, Germany 1996
“Gurevich–Miezis, Bad Godesburg 1996”. Chess-
Games.com. [76] Lalic 1998, p.66
Elbilia–Bartsch, Cannes open 1995
[48] Lalic 1998, p.10
“Gligorić–Westerinen, Venice 1971”. ChessGames.com. [77] Tseitlin 1992, p.47

[78] Lalic 1998, p.51

[49] Borik 1986, p.17
“Korchnoi–Gomez Esteban, Pamplona 1990–91”. Chess-
Akesson–Tagnon, Berlin open 1984
Games.com.
[50] Borik 1986, p.24
[79] Tseitlin 1992, p.49
[51] Borik 1986, p.82
[80] Tseitlin 1992, p.7
Lhaghkva–Contendini, Leipzig Olympiad, 1960
“Rubinstein–Vidmar, Berlin 1918”. ChessGames.com.
[52] Oleinikov chapter 5
[81] Tseitlin 1992, p.55
[53] “ECO classification of WCCF”. Retrieved 2008-05-25. [82] Lalic 1998, p.55
[54] Tseitlin 1992, p.70 “van Wely–Sorin, Buenos Aires 1995”. Chess-
Games.com.
[55] Tseitlin 1992, p.83 Yakovich–Coret, Seville 1992

[56] Tseitlin 1992, p.87 [83] Tseitlin 1992, p.63

[57] Silman 2002 [84] Taylor 2009, p.161.

[58] Tseitlin 1992, p.87 [85] Taylor 2009,pp.164–67

“Arencibia–Motwani, Dubai Olympiad 1986”. Chess-
[86] Lalic 1998, p.36
Games.com.
[87] Tseitlin 1992, p.64
[59] Tseitlin 1992, p.88
[88] Lalic 1998, p.37
[60] Lalic 1998, p.79
[89] Lalic 1998, p.38
[61] Borik 1986, p.19 “Lesiège–Svidler, Oakham 1992”. ChessGames.com.
“Osnos–Yermolinsky, Leningrad 1977”. Chess-
Games.com. [90] Lalic 1998, p.38

[62] Tseitlin 1992, p.78 [91] Lalic 1998, p.30

 296 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

[92] Borik 1986, p.24 [119] Borik 1986, p.50

“Garcia Palermo–Rogers, Reggio Emilia 1984–85”. Moskalenko 2008, p.136
ChessGames.com. Pomar–Heidenfeld, Enschede 1963

[93] Lalic 1998, p.17 [120] Lalic 1998, p.113

[94] Moskalenko 2007, p.69 [121] Lalic 1998, p.123

Mechkarov–Atanasov, correspondence 1955
[95] Lalic 1998, p.18
[122] Borik 1986, p.43; Tseitlin 1992, p.120
[96] Taylor 2009, p.154 “Alekhine–Rabinovich, Baden-Baden 1925”. Chess-
Games.com.
[97] “Mikhalevski–Chabanon (Bad Endbach 1995)". Borik wrongly attributes the black pieces to Seitz in his
book, while Tseitlin and Lalic rightly note the Black player
[98] Lalic 1998, p.27
was actually Rabinovich.
[99] Lalic 1998, p.61
[123] Borik 1986, p.45
Gleizerov–Ritova, Berlin 1996
Chebotayev–Isayev, USSR 1948
[100] Lalic 1998, p.61
[124] Tseitlin 1992, p.39
Sher–Mohr, Ljubljana 1995
Dumitrache–Biti, Zagreb 1997 [125] Lalic 1998, p.120
[101] Lalic 1998, p.47 [126] Lalic 1998, p.120
Gleizerov–Bosch, Cappelle La Grande open 1996 Lorscheid–Dunnington
[102] Lalic 1998, p.49 [127] Tseitlin 1992, p.36

[103] Oleinikov chapter 4 [128] Lalic 1998, p.122

[104] Lalic 1998, p.105 [129] Moskalenko 2008, p.126

Golichenko–Malienko, Kiev 2007
[105] Lalic 1998, p.111
[130] Borik 1986, p.60
[106] Borik 1986, p.47, citing the IMs Harry Schlüsser and Tom
Wedberg [131] Tseitlin 1992, p.89

[107] Borik 1986, p.46 [132] Lalic calls it “undoubtedly the most critical line”. Lalic
1998, p.132
[108] Taylor 2009, p.?
[133] De Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-
[109] Borik 1986, p.47 15. Random House Puzzles & Games. p. 504. ISBN
“Vaganian–Wedberg, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978”. 978-0-8129-3682-7.
ChessGames.com.
[134] Lalic 1998, p.139
[110] Lalic 1998, p.104 “Timoschenko–Welling, Ostend 1991”. Chess-
Games.com.
[111] Lalic 1998, p.110
[135] Lalic 1998, p.139
[112] Tseitlin 1992, p.118 Ricardi–Perez, Olivos 1993
“Rudakovsky–Ratner, Moscow 1945”. Chess-
Games.com. [136] “Hillarp Persson–Romero Holmes, Hotel Bali Stars
2003”. ChessGames.com.
[113] Borik 1986, p.51; Tseitlin 1992, p.119
“Alekhine–Seitz, Hastings 1925–26”. ChessGames.com. [137] Lalic 1998, p.143
Kullamaa–Starke, Correspondence 1991
[114] Borik 1986, p.53
“Keres–Gilg, Prague 1937”. ChessGames.com. [138] Borik 1986, p.91

[115] Tseitlin 1992, p.33 [139] Tseitlin 1992, p.96

[116] Lalic 1998, p.112 [140] Borik 1986, p.68

Potocnik–G.Hofmann, Bled 1996 [141] Lalic 1998, p.152
[117] Lalic 1998, p.112 [142] Borik 1986, p.84
“Dautov–Blatny, Bad Worishofen 1991”. Chess-
Games.com. [143] According to Tseitlin, this idea first occurred in the game
Baginskaite–Stroe, Vilnius 1986
[118] Lalic 1998, p.111
Dautov - Haas, Buehl 1992 [144] Shereshevsky 1994, p. 21.
 12.5. KIENINGER TRAP 297

[145] Lalic 1998, p.101
Marin–de la Villa, Szirak interzonal 1987
[146] Lalic 1998, p.98–99
Zwikowski–Gurieli, Genting Highlands 1990
“Gurevich–Tisdall, Akureyri 1988”. ChessGames.com.
Zayats - Malaniuk, Minsk 1988
• Review by: Glenn Flear & Jon Tisdall. “The
Budapest”. ChessPublishing.com. Retrieved
2009-03-12.
• Moskalenko, Viktor (2007). The Fabulous Budapest
Gambit. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-224-6.

[147] Lalic 1998, p.98 • Review by: John Donaldson. “Fabulous Bu-
Aleksandrov–Pavlenko, Ashkhabad 1990 dapest gambit”. JeremySilman.com. Re-
[148] Lalic 1998, p.127 trieved 2009-03-12.
Henriksson–Wiander, Helsingborg 1991 • Review by: Carsten Hansen. “1.d4 fireworks”
(PDF). ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 2009-03-
[149] Pachman, Ludek (1983). Opening game in chess. Rout- 12.
ledge. ISBN 978-0-7100-9222-9.
• Review by: Bill McGeary. “The Fabulous Bu-
[150] Lalic 1998, p.129 dapest Gambit by GM Victor Moskalenko”.
Akhundov–Simonenko, Ashkhabad 1990 ChessVille.com. Retrieved 2009-09-14.
[151] Borik 1986, p.55
• Oleinikov, Dmitrij (2005). Budapest Gambit (2nd ed.).
[152] Tseitlin 1992, p.111 Chessbase (on CD).
“Helmar–Krejcik, Vienna 1917”. ChessGames.com.
• Silman, Jeremy (2002). “Budapest Gambit”. JeremySil-
[153] Lalic 1998, p.129 man.com. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
“Beliavsky–Epishin, Reggio Emilia 1991”. Chess-
Games.com. • Taylor, Timothy (2009). The Budapest Gambit. Every-
man Chess. ISBN 978-1-85744-592-3.
[154] Tseitlin 1992, p.18
• Review by: Donaldson, John. “The Bu-
[155] Tseitlin 1992, p.20
dapest Gambit”. JeremySilman.com. Re-
[156] Tseitlin 1992, p.15 trieved 2009-09-23.

[157] Borik 1986, p.57

• Review by: Bill McGeary. “The Budapest
Gambit”. ChessVille.com. Retrieved 2012-
[158] Tseitlin 1992, p.12, citing Kwiatkowski 05-27.

[159] Borik 1986, p.93

• Tseitlin, Mikhail; Glaskov, Igor (1992). The Budapest
[160] Tseitlin 1992, p.12 for the Tournament Player. Batsford. ISBN 978-0-8050-
2431-9.
[161] Tseitlin 1992, p.11, citing Schlechter

[162] Borik 1986, p.94, citing Schlechter 12.5.14 Further reading

[163] Tseitlin 1992, p.11
• Martin, Andrew (2009). The Budapest Gambit. Chess-
[164] “Menchik–Tartakower (Paris 1929)". Base (on DVD).

[165] Nadanian, Ashot. “The Soul of the Budapest Gambit”. • Gutman, Lev (2004). Budapest Fajarowicz: The
Chessville. Retrieved 31 December 2011. Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit in Action. Batsford. ISBN 0-
7134-8708-9.
[166] Karolyi, Tibor; Aplin, Nick (2009). “6”. Genius in the
Background. Quality Chess. pp. 198–203. ISBN 978-1-
906552-37-4.
• Review by: Matthew Sadler. “Sadler on
books” (PDF). NewInChess.com. Retrieved
2009-03-10.
12.5.13 References • Review by: Carsten Hansen. “Budapest
Fajarowicz by Lev Gutman” (PDF). Chess-
• Borik, Otto (1986). Budapest Gambit. The Macmil- Cafe.com. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
lan Chess Library. ISBN 978-0-02-017500-1. • Review by: Erik Sobjerg. “Budapest Fa-
• Shereshevsky, Mikhail (1994). The Soviet Chess jarowicz”. SeaGaard.dk. Retrieved 2009-03-
Conveyor. Semko (Sofia). ISBN 954-8782-01-4. 10.

• Lalić, Bogdan (1998). The Budapest Gambit. Bats- • Harding, Tim (1996). The fighting Fajarowicz. Chess Di-
ford. ISBN 978-0-7134-8456-4. gest. ISBN 978-0-87568-281-5.
298
12.5.15 External links
• Gary Lane (February 2002). “A Christmas gift” (PDF).
ChessCafe.
• Tim Harding (November 2000). “The Kibitzer: Playing
the Budapest in Budapest” (PDF). ChessCafe.
• Tim Harding (December 1997). “The Kibitzer: How
Stands the Faj?". ChessCafe.
• Tim Wee. “A Budapest Gambit Assault”. Chess.com.
• Marco Saba. “Opening Report: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 (14376
games)". Centro Studi Monetari.
12.6 Lasker Trap
Position after 5...dxe3, setting the trap
The Lasker Trap is a chess opening trap in the Albin
Countergambit, named after Emanuel Lasker, although
it was first noted by Serafino Dubois (Hooper & Whyld
[1]
1996, p. 219). It is unusual in that it features an
underpromotion as early as the seventh move.
12.6.1 Analysis
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5
The Albin Countergambit.
3. dxe5 d4
The black pawn on d4 is stronger than it ap-
pears.
4. e3?
Careless. Usual and better is 4.Nf3.
4... Bb4+ 5. Bd2 dxe3! (see diagram)
Now White’s best option is to accept doubled
pawns with 6.fxe3.
6. Bxb4??
Blundering into the Lasker Trap. In an 1899
consultation game in Moscow, Blumenfeld,
Boyarkow, and Falk playing White against
Lasker tried 6.Qa4+?, but Black wins after
this move also. The game continued 6...Nc6
7.Bxb4 Qh4 8.Ne2 Qxf2+ 9.Kd1 Bg4 10.Nc3
0-0-0+ 11.Bd6 cxd6 12.e6 fxe6 13.Kc1 Nf6
14.b4 d5 15.b5 Ne5 16.cxd5 Nxd5 17.Qc2
Nb4 18.Nd1+ Nxc2 19.Nxf2 Rd2 White
resigned.
CHAPTER 12. TRAPS
Position after 7...fxg1=N+!
The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (volume
D) gives 6.fxe3 as the best move. Black gets
a slight advantage, but White has avoided the
worst and can defend.
6... exf2+
Now 7.Kxf2 would lose the queen to 7...Qxd1,
so White must play 7.Ke2.
7. Ke2 fxg1=N+! (see diagram)
Underpromotion is the key to the trap. (If in-
stead 7...fxg1=Q, then 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Rxg1
is okay for White.) Now 8.Rxg1 Bg4+ skewers
White’s queen, so the king must move again.
8. Ke1 Qh4+ 9. Kd2
The alternative, 9.g3, loses the h1-rook to the
fork 9...Qe4+.
9... Nc6
White is hopelessly lost. After 10.Bc3,
10...Bg4 followed by 11...0-0-0+ is crushing.
12.6.2 See also
• List of chess traps
12.6.3 References
Notes
[1] Hooper & Whyld 1996 say that Dubois pointed out the
trap in 1872 (p. 219). Although they don't specify where
Dubois published the trap, it could refer to the three-
volume work on the openings that Dubois published from
1868 to 1873 (p.116). Elsewhere they state that the Al-
bin Countergambit was not introduced until 1881 (p. 6),
which seems to be a contradiction. It isn't clear if the trap
discovery date 1872 should perhaps instead be 1882, or if
1881 was the tournament introduction of an opening that
had been published in 1872 or earlier.
Bibliography
• Burgess, Graham (2000), The Mammoth Book of
Chess, Carroll & Graf, ISBN 0-7867-0725-9
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996), The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess (2 ed.), Oxford University,
ISBN 0-19-280049-3
• Blumenfeld/Boyarkow/Falk vs Emanuel Lasker,
Moscow 1899, retrieved 2008-01-24 (game score at
chessgames.com)
12.7. LÉGAL TRAP
12.7 Légal Trap
The Légal Trap or Blackburne Trap (also known as Lé-
gal Pseudo-Sacrifice and Légal Mate) is a chess open-
ing trap, characterized by a queen sacrifice followed by
checkmate with minor pieces if Black accepts the sacri-
fice. The trap is named after the French player Sire de Lé-
gal (1702–92). Joseph Henry Blackburne (1841–1924),
a British master and one of the world’s top five players in
the latter part of the 19th century, set the trap on many
occasions.
12.7.1 Natural move sequence
There are a number of ways the trap can arise, the one be-
low shows a natural move sequence from a simultaneous
exhibition in Paris. André Cheron, one of France’s lead-
ing players, won with the trap as White against Jeanlose:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6
The Semi-Italian Opening.
4. Nc3 Bg4?!
Black pins the knight in the fight over the cen-
ter. Strategically this is a sound idea, but there
is a tactical flaw with the move.
5. h3
In this position 5.Nxe5? would be an unsound
trap. While the white queen still cannot be
taken (5...Bxd1??) without succumbing to a
checkmate in two moves, 5...Nxe5 would win
a knight (for the pawn). Instead, with 5.h3,
White “puts the question” to the bishop which
must either retreat on the c8–h3 diagonal, cap-
ture the knight, be captured, or as in this game,
move to an insecure square.
5... Bh5? (see diagram)
Black apparently maintains the pin, but this is a
tactical blunder which loses at least a pawn (see
below). Relatively best is 5...Bxf3, surrender-
ing the bishop pair and giving White a com-
fortable lead in development, but maintaining
material equality. 5...Be6!? is also possible.
6. Nxe5!
The tactical refutation. White seemingly ig-
nores the pin and surrenders the queen. Black’s
best course now is to play 6...Nxe5, where with
7.Qxh5 Nxc4 8.Qb5+ followed by 9.Qxc4,
299
White remains a pawn ahead, but Black can at
least play on. Instead, if Black takes the queen,
White has checkmate in two moves:
6... Bxd1?? 7. Bxf7+ Ke7 8. Nd5#
The final position (see diagram) is a pure mate, meaning
that for each of the eight squares around the black king,
there is exactly one reason the king cannot move there.[1]
12.7.2 Légal versus Saint Brie
The original game featured Légal playing at rook odds
(without Ra1)[2] against Saint Brie in Paris 1750:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Bg4?! 4. Nc3
g6? 5. Nxe5 Bxd1?? 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Nd5#
1–0[3][4]
Note: the above is the move order found in most publica-
tions. However, Recent research published at Chessbase
[5]
suggests that the move order has been altered retro-
spectively in order to remove a flaw present in the origi-
nal game. Also the date of 1750 is assumed to be wrong.
It is more likely that the game has in fact been played in
1787, and the original move order was:
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Bg4 5.
Nxe5? Bxd1?? 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Nd5# 1–0
Here the “combination” is of course flawed, as with 5...
Nxe5 (instead of falling for the trap) Black could have
gained a piece for free... It is reported that Sire Légal
disguised his trap with a “psychological trick": he first
touched the Knight on f3 and then retreated his hand as if
realizing only now that the Knight was pinned. Then, af-
ter his opponent reminded him of the touch-move rule, he
played Nxe5, and the opponent grabbed the Queen with-
out thinking twice...
Strong evidence for the game indeed having been “recti-
fied” retrospectively by book authors is the fact that 4...
g6 (trying to fianchetto the King’s Bishop) is not a move
that would have been played in the 18th century: the fi-
anchetto is a “modern” invention.
12.7.3 Other variations
12.7.4 Considerations
This kind of mate, where an apparently pinned knight
moves anyway, allowing capture of the queen, but leading
to a checkmate with minor pieces, occasionally occurs at
lower levels of play, though masters would not normally
fall for it. According to Bjerke (Spillet i mitt liv), the Lé-
gal Trap has ensnared countless unwary players. One au-
thor writes that “Blackburne sprang it several hundreds
of times during his annual tours.”[8]
300 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

In general, making a “trap” by luring a bishop into a
queen capture is not strictly necessary. Any game fea-
turing an advanced knight and Bxf7+ (or ...Bxf2+) fol-
lowed by mate with minor pieces would be considered a
Légal Mate. The mate succeeds because the square of
the advanced knight is unguarded, and the enemy king is
blocked by several of its own pieces.
Notes column (hosted at the Chess History Center), chess
historian Edward Winter wrote: “We believe that ‘Mag-
nus Smith Trap’ is a misnomer, although in the Sicilian
Defence there is a ‘Magnus Smith Variation’ (a very rare
instance of a player’s forename and surname being used
jointly in openings terminology).”

12.8.1 The trap

12.7.5 See also
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6
• Checkmate pattern 6. Bc4

This is the Sozin (or Fischer) Variation of the

12.7.6 References Sicilian Defense. A common response is 6...e6,
to make White’s bishop on c4 “bite on granite”.
Notes
6... g6?!
[1] This version of the Légal Trap was presented in Andre
Bjerke (1975). Spillet i mitt liv (in Norwegian). ISBN 82- By playing 6...g6?!, Black falls into the trap.
03-07968-7.
7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. e5! (see diagram)
[2] George Walker, A Selection of Games at Chess (London:
Gilbert and Rivington, 1835), p. 91. Black is in a bad way. After 8...Nh5?, Bobby
[3] Chessgames.com (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/
Fischer gives 9.Qf3! e6 (9...d5 10.Nxd5!)
chessgame?gid=1250654) 10.g4 Ng7 11.Ne4 Qa5+ (11...d5 12.Nf6+
Ke7 13.Qa3+) 12.Bd2 Qxe5 13.Bc3 and
[4] Georges Renaud & Victor Kahn The Art of Checkmate; Black’s queen is trapped. Preferable alterna-
Dover 1962 tives are 8...Ng4 9.e6 f5, and Black eventually
[5] René Gralla, Das Seekadetten-Matt: Original managed to draw in Schlechter–Lasker, World
und Fälschung (http://de.chessbase.com/post/ Championship (7) 1910 and 8...d5 9.exf6 dxc4
das-seekadetten-matt-original-und-flschung) 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bg5 Be6 12.0-0-0+ Ke8,
and Black ultimately even won in Rosen–Burn,
[6] Hooper, Whyld (1987), p. 182 Paris 1900.
[7] Hooper, Whyld (1987), p. 302 The move Black actually chooses leads to in-
stant disaster.
[8] Francis J. Wellmuth The Golden Treasury of Chess; Chess
Review 1943, p. 147. 8... dxe5?? 9. Bxf7+

Bibliography White wins Black’s queen after 9...Kxf7

10.Qxd8.
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1987). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University Press. 12.8.2 References
ISBN 0-19-281986-0.
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
12.7.7 External links 0-19-280049-3.
• Légal Trap at Chessgames.com • Fischer, Bobby and Larry Evans (1969). My 60
Memorable Games. Simon and Schuster. LCCN
68055954.
12.8 Magnus Smith Trap
Position after 8.e5! 12.9 Marshall Trap

The Magnus Smith Trap is a chess opening trap in the Position after 10.Re1?; Black wins with 10...Bxh2+!
Sicilian Defence, named after three-time Canadian chess
champion Magnus Smith (1869–1934). In an article ti- The Marshall Trap is a chess opening trap in Petrov’s
tled "'The Magnus Smith Trap'" published in his Chess Defence named after Frank Marshall.
12.10. MONTICELLI TRAP 301

12.9.1 The trap 12.10.1 Discussion

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 White threatens mate with 11.Qxh7# as well as 11.Bxb7
winning a bishop and a rook. After either 10...Ne4
The trap begins with Black playing Petrov’s 11.Bxe4 or 10...Qxg5 11.Bxb7, Black loses the exchange,
Defence. but obtains compensation in the form of one or more
pawns and possibly a weakened white king. It is unclear
3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. 0-0 if the position is a forced win for White.
0-0 8. c4 Bg4 9. cxd5 f5 10. Re1? (see diagram)
Former world champion José Raúl Capablanca allowed
White should play 10.Nc3 instead. 10.Ng5 twice in consecutive games as Black against Max
Euwe in Amsterdam, 1931, drawing both times. The sec-
10... Bxh2+! ond game continued:[2]

An unexpected blow.
11. Kxh2 Nxf2
Black forks the white queen and bishop, forc-
ing the queen to move.
12. Qe2 Nxd3 13. Qxd3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Qh4+
Followed by Qxe1 winning the e1-rook. Black
has a winning material advantage.
12.9.2 References
• Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld (1996). The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
10...Ne4 11.Bxe4 Bxe4 12.Qxe4 Qxg5
13.Qxa8 Nc6 14.Qb7 Nxd4 15.Rd1 c5 16.e3
Nc2+ 17.Kd2 Qf5 18.Qg2 Nb4 19.e4 Qf6
20.Kc1 Nxa2+ 21.Kb1 Nb4 22.Rxd7 Nc6
23.f4 e5 24.Rhd1 Nd4 25.Rxa7 exf4 26.gxf4
Qxf4 27.Re1 Nf3 28.Re2 Nd4 29.Re1 ½–½
The line has been played several times over the years at
the highest levels, including Portisch–Andersson 1983,[3]
which ended in a draw, and Aronian–Postny 2005,[4]
which White won. The offer of the exchange has in fact
been refused by White in grandmaster games (either by
10.Qxc3 or 10.Ng5 Ne4 11.Bxe4 Bxe4 12.Nxe4[5] ).
12.10.2 See also

• List of chess openings named after people

12.10 Monticelli Trap
In chess, the Monticelli Trap is a combination in 12.10.3 References
the Bogo–Indian Defence, named for Italian cham-
pion Mario Monticelli from the game Monticelli versus Notes
Prokeš, Budapest 1926.[1] Although it is called a trap be-
cause White wins the exchange, Black does obtain some
compensation. [1] Monticelli vs. Prokeš, 1926

The trap begins with the moves: [2] Euwe vs. Capablanca, 1931

1. d4 Nf6 [3] Portisch vs. Andersson, 1983

2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 Bb4+ [4] Aronian vs. Postny, 2005

Black plays the Bogo–Indian De- [5] Psakhis vs. Marin, 2005
fence.
4. Bd2 Bxd2+ Bibliography
5. Qxd2 b6
6. g3 Bb7 • Brace, Edward R. (1977), An Illustrated Dictionary
7. Bg2 O-O of Chess, Hamlyn Publishing Group, p. 191, ISBN
1-55521-394-4
8. Nc3 Ne4
9. Qc2 Nxc3 • Znosko-Borovsky, Eugene (1977), The Art of Chess
10. Ng5! (see diagram) Combination, Dover, p. 82, ISBN 0-486-20583-5
302
12.10.4 External links
12.11 Mortimer Trap
Position after 5...c6. Black wins a piece.
The Mortimer Trap is a chess opening trap in the Ruy
Lopez named after James Mortimer. The Mortimer Trap
is a true trap in the sense that Black deliberately plays an
inferior move hoping to trick White into making a mis-
take.
12.11.1 Analysis
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6
The trap begins with Black playing the Berlin
Defense to the Ruy Lopez. Although the Berlin
was much more popular in the 19th century
than in the 20th, it “became the height of
theory when Vladimir Kramnik used it as his
main defense to defeat Garry Kasparov in their
2000 World Championship match.”[1]
4. d3
White plays a quiet alternative to the more
common 4.0-0, 4.d4, or 4.Nc3 (the last would
transpose to the Four Knights Game). I. A.
Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld wrote that 4.d3 is
"Steinitz’s move, with which he scored many
spectacular successes during his long reign as
World Champion.”[2]
4... Ne7
The Mortimer Defense, intending to reroute
the knight to g6. This rare move loses time
and thus is inferior to other moves, but it sets
a trap. White has many acceptable replies, but
the tempting capture of the black pawn on e5
is a mistake.
5. Nxe5? c6! (see diagram)
Attacking the white bishop and threatening
6...Qa5+. If the bishop moves (6.Ba4 or
6.Bc4), Black wins a piece with 6...Qa5+,
forking the white king and knight.
6. Nc4
White’s best try, covering a5 and thus prevent-
ing 6...Qa5+, and threatening smothered mate
with 7.Nd6#.
CHAPTER 12. TRAPS
6... d6! 7. Ba4 b5
Black forks the white bishop and knight, win-
ning a piece for two pawns.
12.11.2 Discussion
Mortimer played his defense at the 1883 London tourna-
ment against Berthold Englisch, Samuel Rosenthal, and
Josef Noa, losing all three games.[3] Johannes Zuker-
tort, the tournament winner, also played it against En-
glisch, the game resulting in a draw.[4] Zukertort wrote
of 4...Ne7, “Mr. Mortimer claims to be the inventor of
this move. I adopted it on account of its novelty.”[5] The
first edition of the treatise Chess Openings, Ancient and
Modern analyzed 5.Nc3 Ng6 6.0-0 c6 7.Ba4 d6 8.Bb3
and now the authors gave either 8...Be6 or 8...Be7 as giv-
ing Black an equal game.[6] A bit more recently, Horowitz
and Reinfeld observed of 4...Ne7, “This time-wasting re-
treat of the Knight to an inferior square blocks the de-
velopment of the King Bishop ... . Yet it is a matter of
record that this pitfall had a vogue for many years.”[2]
Today, 4...Ne7 is rarely seen, and is not mentioned in
either Modern Chess Openings (which relegates 4.d3 to
a footnote, and mentions only 4...d6 in response)[7] or
the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (which mentions only
4...d6 and 4...Bc5).[8]
12.11.3 References
Notes
[1] De Firmian 2008, p. 43.
[2] Horowitz & Reinfeld 1954, p. 59.
[3] Minchin 1973, pp. 179, 257, 306.
[4] Englisch–Zukertort
[5] Minchin 1973, p. 22.
[6] Freeborough & Ranken 1889, p. 127.
[7] De Firmian 2008, p. 48.
[8] ECO, pp. 332–33.
Bibliography
• De Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings
(15th ed.). Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-
3682-7.
• Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. C (3rd ed.). 1997.
• Freeborough, E.; Ranken, C. E. (1889). Chess
Openings, Ancient and Modern. Trübner and Co.
12.13. RUBINSTEIN TRAP 303

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996). The Ox- In the Sicilian

ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3. A variation of this trap can occur in the Sicilian Defense
after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (the Rossolimo
• Horowitz, I. A.; Reinfeld, Fred (1954). Chess Traps, Variation) a6 4.Ba4?? (4.Bxc6 is necessary and the point
Pitfalls and Swindles. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0- of 3.Bb5 itself) b5 5.Bb3 c4 (see diagram) and the bishop
671-21041-6. is similarly trapped.
Position after 4.Ba4?? b5 5.Bb3 c4
• Minchin, J. I., ed. (1973). Games Played in
the London International Chess Tournament 1883
(reprint ed.). British Chess Magazine. ASIN
B000HX3HE6. 12.12.2 Notes
[1] Steiner–Capablanca, Budapest 1929 at Chessgames.com

12.12 Noah’s Ark Trap

12.12.3 References
Position after 11...c4. The white king bishop is trapped.
• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996), The Ox-
ford Companion to Chess, Oxford University, p.
The Noah’s Ark Trap is a chess opening trap in the Ruy 274, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
Lopez. The name is actually used to describe a family of
traps in the Ruy Lopez in which a white bishop is trapped
on the b3-square by black pawns. 12.13 Rubinstein Trap
White wins a pawn with 13.Nxd5.
12.12.1 Discussion

The origin of the name is uncertain. The shape of the The Rubinstein Trap is a chess opening trap in the
black pawns on a6, b5, and c4 may resemble an ark, or Queen’s Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense. Black
the name may suggest that the trap is "as old as Noah’s loses a pawn after Nxd5 due to the threat of his queen
Ark". being trapped on the back rank by White’s Bc7.

Even chess masters have occasionally fallen victim to this

trap. An example is a game between Endre Steiner and 12.13.1 History
José Capablanca at the Budapest tournament in 1929:[1]
The trap takes its name from Akiba Rubinstein, who had
the misfortune of falling into it twice, in the games Max
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5.
Euwe–Rubinstein, Bad Kissingen 1928, and Alexander
d4
Alekhine–Rubinstein, San Remo 1930. Rubinstein was
not the first to fall victim to the trap; the first recorded
Better moves for White are 5.c3,
game featuring the trap is Amos Burn–Heinrich Wolf,
5.Bxc6+, and 5.0-0.
Ostend 1905.

5... b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?? Alekhine–Rubinstein, San Remo 1930[1]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6
Alexander Alekhine recommended
this move in the tournament book The Queen’s Gambit Declined, Or-
for New York 1924 as a means for thodox Defense.
White to draw, but it is a mistake
4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nc3 0-0 7. Rc1
that loses material. White should
Re8 8. Qc2 a6 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Bd3 c6 11.
instead play 8.Bd5 or try a gambit
0-0 Ne4 12. Bf4 f5? (see diagram)
with 8.c3.
Black falls into the trap.
8... c5 9. Qd5 Be6 10. Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5
13. Nxd5
c4 (see diagram)
White wins a pawn since
The white king bishop is trapped. 13...cxd5?? loses to 14.Bc7,
White resigned after 32 moves. trapping Black’s queen.
304
12.13.2 Notes
[1] Alexander Alekhine vs Akiba Rubinstein, San Remo
(1930) Chessgames.com
12.13.3 References
• Winter, Edward (2003). A Chess Omnibus. Russell
Enterprises. ISBN 1-888690-17-8.
• Winter, Edward. “The Rubinstein Trap”. chesshis-
tory.com. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
12.14 Siberian Trap
This article is about the chess opening. For the geophys-
ical feature, see Siberian Traps.
The Siberian Trap is a chess opening trap. After a se-
ries of natural moves in the Smith–Morra Gambit of the
Sicilian Defence, White can lose a queen. The name ap-
pears to result from Boris Schipkov of Novosibirsk in
southwestern Siberia.
The trap has occurred at least twice in tournament play:
Kolenbet–Schipkov, Khabarovsk 1987, and Tesinsky–
Magerramov, Budapest 1990.
12.14.1 Analysis
1. e4 c5
The Sicilian Defence.
2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3
White’s 3.c3 introduces the Smith–Morra
Gambit. Black accepts the gambit pawn.
4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 Qc7 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Qe2
White prepares e4–e5. This move is playable if
White is careful on the next move. After 8.Re1
Bc5 Black has a good game as White’s f2-
square is sensitive. White also doesn't achieve
much after 8.h3 a6. Instead, NCO suggests
8.Nb5 Qb8 9.e5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Re1
and White has some compensation for the sac-
rificed pawns.
8... Ng4! 9. h3?? (see diagram)
This is a decisive mistake. The same fate be-
fell White after 9.Bb3?? in Kramadzhian–
Schipkov, Novosibirsk 1988. Another try that
CHAPTER 12. TRAPS
doesn't work is 9.Rd1 Bc5. MCO-14 rec-
ommends 9.Nb5! Qb8 (threatening 10...a6
11.Nc3 Nd4!) 10.h3 h5 11.g3 Nge5 12.Nxe5
Nxe5 13.Bf4 a6 with a sharp position with
roughly equal chances.
9... Nd4!
The Black threat of 10...Nxf3+ followed by
11...Qh2# wins material. If 10.Nxd4 then
10...Qh2#.
12.14.2 References
• Burgess, Graham (1994). Winning with the Smith–
Morra Gambit. Batsford. ISBN 0-8050-3574-5.
• de Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings:
MCO-14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN
0-8129-3084-3.
• Nunn, John (ed.); et al. (1999). Nunn’s Chess Open-
ings. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
• Langrock, Hannes (2006). The Modern Morra
Gambit: A Dynamic Weapon Against the Sicilian.
Russell Enterprises. ISBN 1-888690-32-1.
12.14.3 External links
• Chess Siberia
12.15 Tarrasch Trap
Tarrasch Trap refers to two different chess opening
traps in the Ruy Lopez that are named for Siegbert Tar-
rasch. Unlike many variations that appear only in analy-
sis, Tarrasch actually sprung his traps against masters in
tournament games.
12.15.1 Tarrasch Trap in the Open Varia-
tion
Position after 11...Qd7? White wins a piece.
Two masters actually fell for this trap against Tarrasch:
Johannes Zukertort at Frankfurt in 1887 and Isidor Guns-
berg at Manchester in 1890.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Nxe4
This is the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez.
6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Re1 0-0
11. Nd4 Qd7? (see diagram)
12.16. WÜRZBURGER TRAP 305

Falling into the trap. Better is 14...Bh4 15.g3 Nxg3 16.hxg3 Bxg3
where Black get two pawns for the knight.
12. Nxe6
15. Nxc5 Nxc5 16. Bg5 Rd5 17. Be7 Re8 18. c4 1–0
Black’s pawn on d5 will be pinned (along the d-
file or along the a2–g8 diagonal) no matter how White wins at least the exchange, so Marco
he recaptures. After 12...Qxe6 or 12...fxe6 resigned.
White wins a piece with 13.Rxe4.

12.15.3 Notes
12.15.2 Tarrasch Trap in the Steinitz Vari-
ation [1] Tarrasch versus Marco

The second Tarrasch Trap, sometimes referred to as the

Dresden Trap, occurs in the Steinitz Variation. Tarrasch 12.15.4 References
published analysis of this trap in 1891, but 18 months
later Georg Marco fell into it in Tarrasch versus Marco, • Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992). “Tarrasch
[1]
Dresden 1892. Tarrasch spent just five minutes think- Trap”. The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.).
ing during the entire game. Oxford University. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
Position after 7.Re1. Now 7...0-0? falls into the trap.
12.16 Würzburger Trap
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6
5...Qh4+ “initiates ' Würzburger’s Trap'.” (Korn)
This is the Steinitz Variation of the Ruy Lopez.

The Würzburger Trap is a chess opening trap in the

4. d4 Bd7
Vienna Gambit. It was named around 1930 for German
banker Max Würzburger.
Black breaks the pin to meet the threat of 5.d5.

5. Nc3 Nf6 6. 0-0 Be7 7. Re1 (see diagram) 12.16.1 The trap

Laying a subtle trap. Castling seems natural for 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4

Black but it loses a pawn. Instead, 7...exd4 is
better. White plays the Vienna Gambit.

7... 0-0? 8. Bxc6 Bxc6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Qxd8 Raxd8 3... d5
11. Nxe5
Thought to be the best reply.
Black’s best move here is probably 11...Bd7,
although White would remain a pawn ahead.
4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. d3
11... Bxe4?! 12. Nxe4 Nxe4
White also has lines beginning 5.Qf3
(Steinitz) and 5.Nf3, but neither achieves an
White can go astray too, 13.Rxe4?? would be
advantage.[1]
a horrible blunder as Black would checkmate
with 13...Rd1+ 14. Re1 Rxe1#. White blocks
that possibility with his next move, making the 5... Qh4+?
threat real against the black knight on e4.
Initiating the trap. Black has other choices
13. Nd3 f5 5...Bb4 and 5...Nxc3.[2]

The black knight cannot move because of the 6. g3 Nxg3 7. Nf3 Qh5 8. Nxd5 Bg4
pin against the bishop on e7.
8...Nxh1? 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 leads to ad-
14. f3 Bc5+?! vantage for White.[2]
306 CHAPTER 12. TRAPS

Position after 12.b3. The bishop on c2 is lost.

9. Nf4

White can obtain the better game with 9.Bg2

Nxh1 (9...Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Qxe5+ 11.Kd1
Nxh1 12.Bf4 Qxb2 13.Qe4+ +− Hamann–
Schvenkrantz, Germany 1965; 10...Qxf3
11.Bxf3 Nxa1 12.Nxc7+ Kd7 13.Nxa8 Bc5
14.Bxh1 Nc6 15.Bf4± Arhangel’skij–Popov,
USSR 1958; Larsen)[3] 10.Nxc7+ Kd7
(10...Kd8 11.Nxa8 Nc6 12.d4 Bxf3 13.Qxf3
Qxf3 14.Bxf3 Nxd4 15.Bg5+ Be7 16.Rd1+−;
Larsen)[3] 11.Nxa8 Nc6.[2][4]

9... Bxf3 10. Nxh5 Bxd1 11. hxg3 Bxc2?

Black tries to win a pawn, but instead loses a

piece.

12. b3 (see diagram)

The black bishop on c2 is trapped; White will

win it by playing Kd2 next turn.

12.16.2 References
Notes

[1] Horowitz (1964), pp. 221–22

[2] Korn (1982), p. 105

[3] Matanović, Aleksandar, ed. (1981). Encyclopaedia of

Chess Openings. C (2nd ed.). Yugoslavia: Chess Infor-
mant. p. 145.

[4] Horowitz (1964), p. 222

Bibliography

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996). The Ox-

ford Companion to Chess. Oxford University. ISBN
0-19-280049-3.
• Korn, Walter (1982). Modern Chess Openings (12th
ed.). David McKay Company, Inc. ISBN 0-679-
13500-6.
• Horowitz, I. A. (1964). Chess Openings: Theory and
Practice. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-20553-6.

12.16.3 Further reading

• Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982). Batsford
Chess Openings. American Chess Promotions. p.
292. ISBN 0-7134-2112-6.
Chapter 13

Text and image sources, contributors, and

licenses

13.1 Text
• Chess opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_opening?oldid=751857210 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Bryan Derksen, Eclec-
ticology, Arvindn, Fritzlein, Ellmist, Camembert, Dwheeler, Lir, Michael Hardy, Kwertii, Dominus, Sannse, Aofl, Morhippo~enwiki,
DavidWBrooks, Angela, BigFatBuddha, Charles Matthews, Dino, Wik, Furrykef, Populus, Lord Emsworth, Sandman~enwiki, SuPERL-
man, Robbot, Romanm, Academic Challenger, Dehumanizer, Reid, Randyoo, Dina, Cronian~enwiki, Giftlite, Dbenbenn, Jao, Elf, Bfinn,
No Guru, Andris, Neilc, Zeimusu, Sonjaaa, Bob.v.R, Karol Langner, H Padleckas, Sam Hocevar, MartinBiely, Klin~enwiki, Andreas
Kaufmann, Jtmendes, ThreeE, Stupid girl, Rich Farmbrough, Invictus~enwiki, TomPreuss, ZeroOne, Jules991, Shanes, Remember,
Art LaPella, Themindset, Lokifer, DannyMuse, Grutness, Eleland, Damburger, Kotasik, Gene Nygaard, Adrian.benko, Velho, Cygnus-
Pius, GrouchyDan, Jeff3000, GregorB, Jon Harald Søby, Audiovideo, Mendaliv, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, TheRingess, Bubba73,
Tbone, Falphin, Moskvax, Margosbot~enwiki, Zubizuva, Mstroeck, Nehalem, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Borgx, Alvinrune, Wimt, Mfero,
Krakatoa, DGJM, BOT-Superzerocool, Jemptymethod, Sandman1142, Cobblet, Guillom, Mebden, David A Bozzini, SmackBot, Mel-
choir, Vanisher user 73xjd032848jc23, Bryan Nguyen, Skizzik, Jprg1966, MalafayaBot, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Magore, Spiritia,
Rigadoun, Bjankuloski06en~enwiki, Feureau, MTSbot~enwiki, Ioannes Pragensis, CmdrObot, ShelfSkewed, BigGoose2006, Cydebot,
ST47, B, Devassal thibault, Whipster, Thijs!bot, Sopranosmob781, Marek69, PhiLiP, AntiVandalBot, VictorAnyakin, Sluzzelin, The
Transhumanist, Rothorpe, .anacondabot, VoABot II, Sideshow Bob Roberts, Ling.Nut, Baccyak4H, Hmshiau, Icenine378, Orang Utan,
Philcha, MikeLeahyAtBookup, Spinach Dip, Ghindo, Aquatics, STBotD, StupidFatHobbit, Black Kite, Blitzacetidus, VolkovBot, Menasim-
Bot, TXiKiBoT, Mercurywoodrose, Rei-bot, Flakelviv, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, FourteenDays, Bob f it, Karophyr, JStripes, Mblub,
SieBot, StAnselm, Accounting4Taste, Soler97, Sophia91, Helikophis, DixonD, JL-Bot, ClueBot, PipepBot, AmitavaGhose, Panchoy,
Hajimemori, M4gnum0n, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Kardolus~enwiki, ParaGreen13, Mau84~enwiki, Masugly, XLinkBot, Wertu-
ose, Balokrop~enwiki, Kubrick114, Addbot, LinkFA-Bot, Tamberlaine, Tassedethe, Lightbot, OlEnglish, Kiril Simeonovski, ScAvenger,
Mohsenkazempur, Thepillow, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Emildaed, AnomieBOT, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Dirl-
Bot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Unityandoutsider, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, Haosys, Khb33, Citation bot 1, A412, RedBot, Jaxde-
laguerre, Mmb993, Aoidh, Some Wiki Editor, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, TrueCHoJiN, Faolin42, Dcirovic, Phoenixthebird, H3llBot,
Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Qarakesek, Bohdan Vovk, MerlIwBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, TriEqlzWun, Noelevans, Jkmaskell, MildRook,
Toccata quarta, Kjbinukj, BattyBot, Teammm, Dexbot, Antipas Scribe, PeterLFlomPhD, Rastus Vernon, Stoneymansion, GretDrabba,
Monkbot, Jamalmunshi, HalSmitty, Arunprasathame, Smkindian, MasterChessOpenings, KasparBot, SaxXiz, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd,
Joemax55555, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 207
• King’s Pawn Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Pawn_Game?oldid=744235729 Contributors: Arvindn, No Guru,
Bob.v.R, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Hbdragon88, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Nihiltres, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, SmackBot, Whispering,
Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Insanephantom, Banedon, KnightMove, Nick Number, Matthew Proctor, Escarbot, Robin Goodfellow,
Albmont, Lord Seth, Lyctc, TXiKiBoT, MaxBrowne, Synthebot, AlleborgoBot, SieBot, MuzikJunky, Swedish fusilier, Rhododendrites,
Sun Creator, Rossen4, Fastily, Mm40, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Citation bot 1, Tom.Reding,
Double sharp, Kolobochek, Updatehelper, Bounce1337, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Whoop whoop pull up, Checkrepublic, Frietjes, Ugaba,
Compfreak7, Notthebestusername, Chess SuperGM, GreenC bot and Anonymous: 22
• Open Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game?oldid=744924291 Contributors: Mike Rosoft, Eric Shalov, Kms, Isnow,
Quale, Bubba73, Spasemunki, Krakatoa, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Chrish68, Bluebot, Whispering, EdGl, Rigadoun, Bane-
don, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Marek69, MarshBot, Giler, Albmont, Kyle the bot, Voorlandt, BotMultichill, Moonraker12, PipepBot, Sun
Creator, Chesslover96, ChessA4, Addbot, Ronhjones, Johannesbjarki, Mohsenkazempur, Luckas-bot, Ptbotgourou, Spaideris, Xqbot, Mr-
sHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, Citation bot 1, Smuckola, Fryedk, Double sharp, Alph Bot, EmausBot, Laszlovszky
András, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 22
• Semi-Open Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Open_Game?oldid=708731615 Contributors: Isnow, Quale, Bubba73,
SmackBot, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Idioma-bot, VolkovBot, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, Addbot, Mohsenkazempur, Luckas-bot, Plutoni-
umPawn, ArthurBot, Xqbot, Citation bot 1, Double sharp, ZéroBot, Ragnarblood, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Sandric and Anonymous: 8
• King’s Knight Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Knight_Opening?oldid=641781407 Contributors: ZeroOne,
Sjakkalle, Bubba73, YurikBot, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Idioma-bot, Black Kite, VolkovBot, TXiKi-
BoT, Synthebot, Sun Creator, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Yobot, Rubinbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, DixonDBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and
Anonymous: 5

307
308 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

• Ruy Lopez Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez?oldid=751551779 Contributors: Camembert, Eric119, Ahoerstemeier,

AugPi, Nikai, Evercat, Amntony, Wik, Furrykef, Topbanana, Lord Emsworth, Mattflaschen, Cronian~enwiki, Herschel, Jao, No Guru,
Andris, Neilc, Pgan002, Gauss, H Padleckas, Urhixidur, Mschlindwein, Klin~enwiki, Andreas Kaufmann, Safety Cap, ThreeE, Ze-
roOne, La goutte de pluie, Stjef, Kingsindian, Anthony Appleyard, Jabernal, Pauli133, Adrian.benko, CygnusPius, PatGallacher, Jacobo-
lus, Fenya~enwiki, Audiovideo, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, Wragge, Mrfrapp~enwiki, Mercury McKinnon, Yurik-
Bot, Krakatoa, Juanpdp, BOT-Superzerocool, Rcinda1, Tcsetattr, Cobblet, MrHen, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Ahimsa52,
Hmains, Colonies Chris, Chr.K., Ntsiebel, Shalom Yechiel, Fuhghettaboutit, Jmhindle, Soobrickay, Sibahi, SashatoBot, ArglebargleIV,
Ravenous75, MTSbot~enwiki, Eastfrisian, Rodrigo Novaes, Ioannes Pragensis, Cream147, Gablejb, PamD, Thijs!bot, A3RO, Mack2,
Keith111, Deflective, Ryan4314, Rothorpe, .anacondabot, SyG, Mokru, MainlandX, Kimse, Philcha, Silas S. Brown, Signalhead, TXiKi-
BoT, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, Broadbot, AlleborgoBot, Igmarin, Bucklehead, SieBot, BotMultichill, Cwkmail, Abhishikt, ClueBot, Arti-
choker, M4gnum0n, Sun Creator, Muro Bot, GeorgeTh, Shw300iceage, Chesslover96, XLinkBot, Mm40, Lab-oratory, Addbot, LinkFA-
Bot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Matěj Grabovský, Zorrobot, MuZemike, Mohsenkazempur, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ethansiegel,
Againme, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, Shotcallerballerballer, Rygbi7777, MrsHudson, SassoBot, FadulJoseArabe, Adrignola, BukMer, Hush-
puckena, Everlasting Winner, Citation bot 1, Þjóðólfr, Dark Charles, HRoestBot, RedBot, TobeBot, Kolobochek, RjwilmsiBot, Bento00,
EmausBot, Instruktorek, Winterj81, Grondilu, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Lazardel, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Sherwood Cat, ClueBot NG, Friet-
jes, Green Rain, SverreJ0, Helpful Pixie Bot, The Gaon, Chessking11, Rayous, Toccata quarta, McLennonSon, Cliff12345, Lion1judah,
BattyBot, Hasire, Dexbot, Facultative, Sir Wederson Winchester, RynMasters, Mathmensch, JaconaFrere, Tdiamantidis, Faranan2030,
Thieh, Zombieanalytics, Lemz0r, ASM999, Chessmasterguy, Avalanchian, Chess SuperGM, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 161
• Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez%2C_Exchange_Variation?oldid=652709005 Con-
tributors: Yozo~enwiki, Quale, Bubba73, Quuxplusone, WTHarvey, Imnotminkus, Thither, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, Bane-
don, VolkovBot, Voorlandt, M4gnum0n, Sun Creator, Addbot, Yobot, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Hushpuck-
ena, Citation bot 1, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Ekoman52, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 13
• Italian Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Game?oldid=733061216 Contributors: GCarty, Pollinator, Andreas Kauf-
mann, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Wood Thrush, Amontero, Ronark, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, Giro720, Krakatoa, Cobblet, SmackBot, Jon513,
Whispering, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, DeLarge, Michal.Pohorelsky, Jon Stockton, Thijs!bot, Gioto, Tws45, JAnDbot, Fountains of
Bryn Mawr, Dubhe.sk, Taraborn, Rei-bot, MaxBrowne, Viskonsas, Moonraker12, Hsf-toshiba, Swedish fusilier, Sun Creator, Rossen4,
XLinkBot, Denizadam, SilvonenBot, Madcapslaugh, Addbot, NjardarBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jean.julius, ChristopheS, Materialscien-
tist, Spaideris, Xqbot, Adrignola, BukMer, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Makecat-bot, Zombieanalytics, UtopianDynasty and Anonymous: 22
• Hungarian Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Defense?oldid=641778993 Contributors: Arvindn, ZeroOne, Ele-
land, CygnusPius, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, SashatoBot, Rigadoun, Thijs!bot, Tws45, .anacondabot, TXiK-
iBoT, SieBot, Moonraker12, Hsf-toshiba, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Lightbot, Mro, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation bot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Grou-
choBot, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 6
• Two Knights Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Knights_Defense?oldid=715985847 Contributors: Arvindn, GCarty,
Djinn112, No Guru, Zfr, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Foobaz, Jacobolus, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Bob Hu, That Guy, From
That Show!, SmackBot, Tsca.bot, Shalom Yechiel, SashatoBot, MTSbot~enwiki, Ioannes Pragensis, Banedon, Mibelz, Haltia~enwiki,
Headbomb, Escarbot, Coyets, Happily ever after, Rothorpe, SyG, Ollem, Idioma-bot, TXiKiBoT, MaxBrowne, SieBot, YonaBot,
OTAVIO1981, Moonraker12, Swedish fusilier, Sun Creator, Chesslover96, Addbot, Rapanui73, David Asher, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
Fraggle81, AnomieBOT, Rubinbot, JackieBot, Bourge, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, Double sharp, WikitanvirBot,
Pete Hobbs, Grondilu, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Hasire, Monkbot,
ASM999, Chess SuperGM, Awesome Days and Anonymous: 40
• Fried Liver Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Knights_Defense%2C_Fried_Liver_Attack?oldid=745444336 Contribu-
tors: Eric119, SmilingBoy, Discospinster, ZeroOne, Foobaz, Quale, NeonMerlin, Bubba73, DybrarH, Bob Hu, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel,
Cream147, Zickzack, Perlnerd666, Anonywiki, Black Kite, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, OTAVIO1981, Blahblah5555, Rhododendrites, Sun
Creator, Smcb555, Geertdd, Addbot, Yobot, Marc Schroeder, MrsHudson, Superyetkin, Locobot, Adrignola, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Chuis-
pastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Eug.baranov, Frietjes, Abdooss, Theemathas, Aaronaraujo2013, Muhammad Areez, Kingchess-
raider, 4, SaxXiz, GreenC bot and Anonymous: 33
• Giuoco Piano Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuoco_Piano?oldid=752549341 Contributors: GCarty, Furrykef, Robbot, Djinn112,
No Guru, Bob.v.R, H Padleckas, ThreeE, Stupid girl, ZeroOne, Chvsanchez, Shoka, Bantman, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, ABot, Bubba73,
Salvatore Ingala, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Giro720, Krakatoa, Rcinda1, SamuelRiv, Cobblet, SmackBot, TimBentley, Tsca.bot, Shalom Yechiel,
Eynar, Ligulembot, Banedon, Myasuda, MC10, Thijs!bot, Tws45, JAnDbot, Husond, RebelRobot, Omerzu, Fountains of Bryn Mawr,
MaxBrowne, OTAVIO1981, Flyer22 Reborn, Moonraker12, Hsf-toshiba, Capitalismojo, M4gnum0n, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot,
Niemzowitsch, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Citation bot, Spaideris, Adrignola, FrescoBot, CarlesMartin, Kross-
fire38, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Esculenta, Cthombor, Bever, Shreyas61196, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous:
45
• Evans Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Gambit?oldid=730636647 Contributors: Camembert, GCarty, Furrykef, Fin-
lay McWalter, Smb1001, No Guru, Andris, Neilc, Gordoni, ThreeE, Discospinster, Samboy, CanisRufus, TheHungryTiger, Ire and curses,
CygnusPius, Jacobolus, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, WTHarvey, OpenToppedBus, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Jimerb, That Guy,
From That Show!, Dumiac, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, SashatoBot, Phoenixrod, Banedon, Thijs!bot, Tws45, Happily ever after, Magi-
oladitis, Pawnkingthree, Darklama, Idioma-bot, TXiKiBoT, Rei-bot, MaxBrowne, Moonraker12, Oxymoron83, Fratrep, Sersunzo, Sun
Creator, Chesslover96, Against the current, Lab-oratory, Crat, Addbot, AndersBot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Greg Holden 08, Citation
bot, Eumolpo, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Cekli829, Ripchip Bot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Elmarius, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful
Pixie Bot, Eric M Shore, Toccata quarta, Omid.espero, Barnabas1717 and Anonymous: 36
• Italian Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Gambit?oldid=733070238 Contributors: ThreeE, ZeroOne, Pion, Quale,
Bubba73, Krakatoa, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Dgies, Gioto, Tws45, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, MaxBrowne, Rhododen-
drites, Sun Creator, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Cuaxdon, Citation bot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Dcirovic,
Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, WNYY98, Dexbot and Anonymous: 6
• Irish Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Gambit?oldid=641779180 Contributors: Macaddct1984, Quale, Krakatoa,
Wknight94, Cobblet, Hibbleton, Shalom Yechiel, Alaibot, Mlsutton, Chesslover96, SilvonenBot, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, Spaideris,
MrsHudson, BukMer, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 3
13.1. TEXT 309

• Jerome Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuoco_Piano%2C_Jerome_Gambit?oldid=744904335 Contributors: Bubba73,

Krakatoa, Cobblet, JudahH, MaxBrowne, Sun Creator, XLinkBot, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, MrsHudson, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso,
ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Cyberbot II, Bever, Chess SuperGM, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 12
• Blackburne Shilling Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Game%2C_Blackburne_Shilling_Gambit?oldid=650537690
Contributors: Bjimba, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Cmdrjameson, Goatbear, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, SmackBot, Melchoir, Shalom Yechiel,
Ligulembot, Rigadoun, Xeno, Knulclunk, WarddrBOT, Voorlandt, Artichoker, Sun Creator, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, AnomieBOT,
MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Updatehelper, Ihardlythinkso, Sean Quixote, Frietjes and Anonymous: 10
• Scotch Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Game?oldid=752280454 Contributors: GCarty, Robbot, No Guru, Neilc,
Sonjaaa, Bob.v.R, ZeroOne, CygnusPius, Fenya~enwiki, Zoz, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Matt Deres, Nihiltres, WTHarvey, Roboto de
Ajvol, Krakatoa, Rcinda1, Acwazytomato, Cobblet, Jonasfagundes, Eric Guez, Gaspar van der Sar, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Animalzhu,
Banedon, ShelfSkewed, Myasuda, WinBot, Tws45, Magioladitis, Vadimka~enwiki, Idioma-bot, TXiKiBoT, OTAVIO1981, Randy Kryn,
Sun Creator, Richard reti, ParaGreen13, Lab-oratory, Balokrop~enwiki, Addbot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
Amirobot, Ulric1313, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, GrandMattster, MrsHudson, PiFanatic, Adrignola, Johnmcmullin, BukMer, Tobe-
Bot, ZéroBot, Lazardel, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Jogmiers, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, Makecat-bot, PMC
57, Shreyas61196, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 47
• Ponziani Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponziani_Opening?oldid=709687675 Contributors: Arvindn, Mswake, Chow-
bok, ZeroOne, Wareh, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, Tommy Kronkvist, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, Smack-
Bot, Shalom Yechiel, SashatoBot, RTejedor, Rigadoun, Sasata, Eastfrisian, Thijs!bot, Tws45, Michig, SyG, BrianWall, FruitMonkey,
Anonywiki, Hugo999, Rossen3, TXiKiBoT, Falcon8765, Phil wink, Artichoker, Sun Creator, Addbot, Ronald Reuel, Tassedethe, Tide
rolls, Kiril Simeonovski, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, Marc Schroeder, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer,
Hushpuckena, Citation bot 1, Faceless Enemy, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, AvocatoBot,
Toccata quarta, Ponz111, Mrshroom29, Monkbot and Anonymous: 14
• Inverted Hungarian Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_Hungarian_Opening?oldid=641779173 Contributors:
Arvindn, ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, PipepBot, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Citation bot, BukMer,
Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 4
• Konstantinopolsky Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantinopolsky_Opening?oldid=649202460 Contributors:
Arvindn, Asparagus, Sonjaaa, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Quale, Bubba73, That Guy, From That Show!, Shalom Yechiel, R'n'B, VolkovBot,
OTAVIO1981, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, Citation bot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, BukMer, LegesRomanorum, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot
NG, Frietjes, Chessmasterguy and Anonymous: 7
• Three Knights Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Knights_Opening?oldid=641786684 Contributors: Stephen Gilbert,
Rholton, Sonjaaa, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, WTHarvey, Welsh, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, SashatoBot,
Rigadoun, Eastfrisian, Cream147, Thijs!bot, RaNdOm26, .anacondabot, TXiKiBoT, DragonBot, Sun Creator, Chesslover96, Addbot, Kiril
Simeonovski, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green
Rain, BattyBot and Anonymous: 10
• Four Knights Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Knights_Game?oldid=737792628 Contributors: Zundark, Furrykef, No
Guru, Grutter, ZeroOne, Knucmo2, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Matt Deres, Falphin, YurikBot, William Caputo, Krakatoa, Bluebot,
Colonies Chris, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, SashatoBot, Banedon, ShelfSkewed, Lausey, Thijs!bot, Matthew Proctor, RaNdOm26, Ghmyr-
tle, JAnDbot, Kitaro2006, Magioladitis, Icenine378, Elite Warrior, TXiKiBoT, ClueBot, Neles, PixelBot, Sun Creator, SilvonenBot, Ad-
dbot, Numbo3-bot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Bourge, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, HamburgerRadio, Þjóðólfr, WTM,
Zerkroz, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, BattyBot, RynMasters, Monkbot, Kukkie,
ASM999, GreenC bot, Awesome Days and Anonymous: 28
• Halloween Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Gambit?oldid=747346959 Contributors: Furrykef, Jinnentonik,
ThreeE, ZeroOne, Cmdrjameson, Gene Nygaard, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Shalom Yechiel,
NapoleonB, Ninetyone, ColorOfSuffering, DrKay, MaxBrowne, Mx. Granger, SpikeToronto, Sun Creator, Egmontaz, Rossen4, Lab-
oratory, Addbot, Favonian, Jaydec, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Double sharp, Josve05a, Kranix, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, BG19bot,
Toccata quarta, Ginsuloft, GreenC bot and Anonymous: 43
• Philidor Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philidor_Defence?oldid=745243916 Contributors: Camembert, RedWolf, As-
paragus, No Guru, Varlaam, D6, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, BrokenSegue, Woohookitty, Jacobolus, GregorB, Isnow, Fenya~enwiki, Quale,
Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Reedy, Skizzik, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, MTSbot~enwiki,
Banedon, RaNdOm26, Mack2, Albmont, Anonywiki, Pawnkingthree, Black Kite, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, YonaBot, Randy Kryn, Swedish
fusilier, Topsaint, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Rapanui73, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Matěj Grabovský, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Spaideris,
LilHelpa, Gypsydave5, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, RedBot, TjBot, Ihardlythinkso, Verman1, Frietjes, Green Rain,
Helpful Pixie Bot, ChrisGualtieri and Anonymous: 30
• Elephant Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_Gambit?oldid=723462129 Contributors: Arvindn, Infrogmation,
Clemwang, ZeroOne, Wareh, Camitommy, Interiot, Quale, Bubba73, Cjpuffin, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Eskimbot, Persian Poet Gal, Brit-
tle heaven, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, Yurell, JAnDbot, Conspiration, VolkovBot, Kilori, Andrarias, OTAVIO1981,
Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Mann jess, MrsHudson, Oyp, Mathonius, Adrignola, Inox-en, ZéroBot,
Zdenekk2, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Jerzy Konikowski, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 23
• Damiano Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damiano_Defence?oldid=722287218 Contributors: Camembert, Dwheeler,
Donarreiskoffer, Tom harrison, Mike Rosoft, ThreeE, Modargo, ZeroOne, Wareh, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, OwenX, Sjakkalle, Quale,
Bubba73, Falphin, YurikBot, Grifter84, The Ogre, Krakatoa, Zwobot, Sam Sloan, Cobblet, Melchoir, Thrashbarg, Shalom Yechiel, Sam-
scone, MTSbot~enwiki, Banedon, Matthew Proctor, JAnDbot, RebelRobot, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Jckuli, Artichoker, Sun Creator, Lab-
oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jean.julius, Ulric1313, Adrignola, Double sharp, Kolobochek, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso,
Frietjes, Green Rain, ChessPlayerLev, Mogism, Eliseo 3.14, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 27
• Greco Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco_Defence?oldid=641422670 Contributors: Arvindn, Jfire, Dersen, Sonjaaa,
Anythingyouwant, ThreeE, Discospinster, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Stormbay, FrozenPurpleCube,
SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, VanWiel, Zorro CX, Omerzu, Black Kite, PipepBot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Ad-
dbot, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Yobot, Spaideris, Adrignola, Redzest, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Jellefar, Adrianjaepoblete,
PMC 57 and Anonymous: 11
310 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

• Gunderam Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunderam_Defense?oldid=634331210 Contributors: GTBacchus, Quale,

Bubba73, SmackBot, Roberto Cruz, Hmains, Chris the speller, Ioannes Pragensis, SyG, SieBot, Mr. Stradivarius, Sun Creator, Rossen4,
Lab-oratory, Addbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Yobot, AnomieBOT, MrsHudson, Adrignola, DrilBot, Ihardlythinkso and Anonymous: 2
• Latvian Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Gambit?oldid=707357277 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Zundark, Eclecti-
cology, Arvindn, Fritzlein, Camembert, Pizza Puzzle, Jason Potter, Andris, Neilc, Mackeriv, OwenBlacker, Xezbeth, Samboy, ZeroOne,
CanisRufus, Causa sui, Arcadian, Jacobolus, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Gaius Cornelius, Msikma, Krakatoa, Cobblet, SmackBot, Jon513,
Shalom Yechiel, Smith609, MTSbot~enwiki, Eastfrisian, HisSpaceResearch, Red 81, Thijs!bot, Mack2, Tws45, Michig, Omerzu, Anony-
wiki, STBotD, Vestboy Myst, MaxBrowne, SieBot, Goliadkin, Sun Creator, Addbot, DFS454, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski,
ScAvenger, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Shotcallerballerballer, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Cekli829, Hushpuckena, Tabbelio, Double sharp,
Grondilu, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Primergrey, Green Rain, K9re11, GretDrabba, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 32
• Rousseau Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Game%2C_Rousseau_Gambit?oldid=720247236 Contributors: Rob-
bot, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Sietse Snel, Quale, Bubba73, Algebraist, Krakatoa, TimBentley, Persian Poet Gal, Shalom Yechiel, A4bot,
OTAVIO1981, Dpeinador~enwiki, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, Sisyph, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Hush-
puckena, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, KWiki and Anonymous: 7
• Petrov’s Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrov’{}s_Defence?oldid=754209930 Contributors: Camembert, MathMartin,
No Guru, Ezhiki, Neilc, Andycjp, Sonjaaa, Karol Langner, Elroch, ThreeE, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Fermatprime, Knucmo2, Mailer dia-
blo, Zshzn, Bunchofgrapes, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot, BonfireBuddhist, YurikBot, RussBot, Billbrock, Introgressive,
Krakatoa, Bota47, Rcinda1, William Allen Simpson, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, SashatoBot, Banedon, Thijs!bot, .anacondabot, Alb-
mont, Yonidebot, Inquam, Lyctc, Idioma-bot, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, MaxBrowne, Randy Kryn, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, ClanCC,
Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Yoavd, HerculeBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Pt-
botgourou, Ulric1313, August75, MrsHudson, Sirgorpster, Adrignola, BukMer, FrescoBot, Citation bot 1, TjBot, Pete Hobbs, ZéroBot,
H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Toccata quarta, Vanischenu, BattyBot, GretDrabba, Monkbot, Chessmasterguy and Anonymous: 53
• Sicilian Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence?oldid=753186754 Contributors: Arvindn, Camembert, Ubiq-
uity, Bdesham, Dougmerritt, Furrykef, Cabalamat, Webhat, GreatWhiteNortherner, Ludraman, Djinn112, No Guru, Neilc, Andycjp, Son-
jaaa, Ehamberg, ThreeE, Modargo, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Chvsanchez, Sietse Snel, Causa sui, Foobaz, Kingsindian, Knucmo2, Wendell,
Gblaz, Eli the Bearded, Jabernal, Smackfu, WojciechSwiderski~enwiki, Adrian.benko, CygnusPius, Brian Merz, Jacobolus, Tabletop,
GregorB, Dionyziz, Fenya~enwiki, Qwertyus, Zoz, AllanBz, Sjakkalle, Koavf, Quale, Zbxgscqf, Bubba73, Wragge, FlaBot, KarlFrei,
Wknight8111, Jameshfisher, WarmasterKron, YurikBot, RobotE, Hairy Dude, RussBot, Cryptic, Frederick R, Introgressive, Krakatoa,
Misza13, Georgeslegloupier, Cobblet, Mebden, Meegs, John Broughton, FrozenPurpleCube, DT29, SmackBot, Slashme, Fetofs, Timneu22,
Kscheffler, Colonies Chris, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Dumpendebat, Okino, Lambiam, BrownHairedGirl, Bendybendy, Ravenous75,
JoeBot, Igoldste, Origin415, Cryptic C62, Duduong, CmdrObot, Myasuda, Gogo Dodo, KnightMove, Storeye, Thijs!bot, Barticus88,
Chipka, Tourdeforcex, AntiVandalBot, Therifleman62, Mbjoker, SmokeyTheCat, JAnDbot, Barek, Michig, Sawdichtel, .anacondabot,
Omerzu, Baccyak4H, Rugops, Andy4226uk, Whatteaux, Philcha, Maurice Carbonaro, Miltonkeynes, FruitMonkey, Anonywiki, Plas-
ticup, Black Kite, VolkovBot, Greatdebtor, Rossen3, TXiKiBoT, Trimagna, MaxBrowne, Shirleyepaul, Mightymax1, SieBot, YonaBot,
1e4c5, Abhishikt, Joe Gatt, Baseball Bugs, WilhelmHH~enwiki, Undoubtedly0, Daverose31, WikiLaurent, Prasanthv88, Swedish fusilier,
Peanut4, Piledhigheranddeeper, SpikeToronto, Sun Creator, MacedonianBoy, 7&6=thirteen, Fleshflake, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Masugly,
Reesmf, Addbot, LaaknorBot, LinkFA-Bot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Matěj Grabovský, Mohsenkazempur, Country-
Bot, Ben Ben, Luckas-bot, Rpattabi, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, Flewis, Citation bot, Eaglebreath, ArthurBot, Mgc06, Xqbot, Mr-
sHudson, FadulJoseArabe, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, Crete2251, Citation bot 1, Dan Quigley, Geoffreybernardo,
Þjóðólfr, Fryedk, TobeBot, Trappist the monk, Aoidh, Sgravn, Kingofthevegetablepeople, TjBot, EmausBot, Cheeky25, Not Accessi-
ble, Grondilu, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Carmarten, Aschwole, Brandmeister, Postprehistoric, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Amymoten, Frietjes,
Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Toccata quarta, Proxyma, BattyBot, Dexbot, Vnkn, Thatnamepleasedont, Monkbot, Greavg, Randomwik-
iuser2342, Hopechen, Asdklf;, TheCoffeeAddict, Chessmasterguy, Willneibergall, InternetArchiveBot, Chess SuperGM, E1ehozjan, Ben-
der the Bot, Dmitriy Katalymov and Anonymous: 196
• Sicilian Defence, Alapin Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Alapin_Variation?oldid=741428284
Contributors: Zundark, Andycjp, CanisRufus, Brian Merz, Bubba73, Welsh, Krakatoa, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, Petrichor, Banedon,
Alaibot, Baselbonsai, Onlynone, Anonywiki, MaxBrowne, SieBot, Randy Kryn, Ikaria, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot,
MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, BukMer, HRoestBot, EmausBot, MikeyMouse10, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, LDBaz
and Anonymous: 13
• Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Dragon_Variation?oldid=752973778
Contributors: Webhat, No Guru, H Padleckas, Mooseboy, Martpol, Modargo, ZeroOne, Knucmo2, Gene Nygaard, Mandarax, Graham87,
Quale, Bubba73, Ucucha, Jmw0000, WTHarvey, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Fetofs, B00P, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Justin Stafford, Galactor213,
JoeBot, Banedon, Storeye, ScottM84, Rugops, Maurice Carbonaro, Anonywiki, Moondoll, Billebrooks, VolkovBot, Malinaccier, Soler97,
Goliadkin, Randy Kryn, Swedish fusilier, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, MystBot, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Light-
bot, Ben Ben, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Gongshow, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, LilHelpa, MrsHudson, Adrignola, DespicableLiar, Iceman9gem,
H3llBot, Orange Suede Sofa, Ihardlythinkso, Movses-bot, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Toccata quarta, ChrisGualtieri,
Phigknotpig, Monkbot, Canyafeeltheluv and Anonymous: 64
• Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Accelerated_Dragon?oldid=
752284949 Contributors: Rl, Bubba73, Cobblet, Shalom Yechiel, SyG, Casopi, Anonywiki, Sbowers3, Goliadkin, Randy Kryn, Sun Cre-
ator, Addbot, Rpattabi, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, HRoestBot, Ihardlythinkso, Rumo75, Frietjes, Toccata quarta, BattyBot, Vnkn,
Monkbot, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 11
• Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Dragon_Variation%2C_
Yugoslav_Attack%2C_9.Bc4?oldid=725047133 Contributors: Webhat, ComplexZeta, Chvsanchez, Carcharoth, Quale, Bubba73, WTHar-
vey, Siddharth Prabhu, Gaius Cornelius, Hydrogen Iodide, Shalom Yechiel, Banedon, Storeye, Rugops, Moondoll, FrankEldonDixon, Voor-
landt, Matthew Yeager, Soler97, Sbowers3, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Kelsoisme, Kman543210, Yobot, AnomieBOT, LilHelpa, MrsHudson,
Siddhartha Ghai, Fryedk, Cobaltcigs, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Laicyrus, Toccata quarta, Bla2e, Infraboof,
Monkbot and Anonymous: 12
• Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Najdorf_Variation?oldid=
748361452 Contributors: William Avery, Robbot, Webhat, Asparagus, Bfinn, Explendido Rocha, Neilc, Modargo, Bender235, ZeroOne,
Goatbear, Edoderoo, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, Jeff3000, Tabletop, AllanBz, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, WTHarvey, WarmasterKron,
13.1. TEXT 311

Nylex, Bgwhite, Billbrock, Krakatoa, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Whispering, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, OneEuro-
peanHeart, KNM, Safalra, Storeye, Thijs!bot, Zickzack, Escarbot, Raghunc, JAnDbot, Michig, Nmcmurdo, Talaris, SyG, Anonywiki,
Furorimpius, Trimagna, MaxBrowne, Rodrigo170988, M4gnum0n, Sun Creator, SilvonenBot, Mm40, Addbot, SpellingBot, Johannesb-
jarki, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Conroy23, Rojypala, Whiteknight, Ben Ben, Gebminds, AnomieBOT, MrsHudson, Latest
Incarnation, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Apdency, Johnnyc24, A2soup, Thomasdav, H3llBot, Savedra, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot
NG, Frietjes, Jogmiers, Green Rain, Twaburov~enwiki, BG19bot, Compfreak7, Toccata quarta, Hasire, DoctorKubla, I am One of Many,
RynMasters, Monkbot, Jamalmunshi, Aussie589, Tsubakura, Debanjan Bhowmik and Anonymous: 62
• Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Scheveningen_Variation?
oldid=724839309 Contributors: Webhat, Andycjp, Bob.v.R, Andreas Kaufmann, Longhair, Sjakkalle, Backward Development, Otto ter
Haar, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Fetofs, Shalom Yechiel, OrphanBot, CmdrObot, R'n'B, Lyctc, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Randy Kryn,
Sun Creator, SilvonenBot, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Dr Zimbu, Luckas-bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, FrescoBot, Phoenixthe-
bird, H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, TitaniumCarbide, Acrazydiamond, Frietjes, Green Rain, Jkmaskell, YFdyh-bot, TuxLibNit and Anonymous:
19
• Chekhover Sicilian Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Chekhover_Variation?oldid=702574743 Contributors:
Zundark, Gromlakh, MBisanz, Gary, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, CosmicPenguin, DGG, R'n'B, TXiKiBoT, Undoubtedly0, Sun Creator,
Rror, SilvonenBot, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, Thehistorychannel, LilHelpa, MrsHudson, BukMer, HRoestBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes
and Anonymous: 4
• Wing Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Gambit?oldid=721078783 Contributors: Camembert, Sonjaaa, Rich Farm-
brough, ZeroOne, Camitommy, Jacobolus, Quale, Bubba73, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Nick Number, S43, Magioladitis,
R'n'B, VolkovBot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Ronald Reuel, Yobot, JackieBot, ArthurBot, MrsHudson,
Fryedk, IllCom, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Ukasm and Anonymous: 18
• Smith-Morra Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Smith%E2%80%93Morra_Gambit?oldid=
670123329 Contributors: Camembert, Cimon Avaro, Evercat, SuPERLman, Asparagus, No Guru, Andris, Mdob, Danko Georgiev,
Modargo, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Chvsanchez, Ynhockey, Brian Merz, Jacobolus, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, War-
masterKron, Cobblet, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Shir Khan, Random name, Storeye, WinBot, Anonywiki, Manuel0302, Cbigorgne,
TXiKiBoT, StAnselm, PixelBot, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Against the current, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
AnomieBOT, Shotcallerballerballer, MrsHudson, PeskyGnat, BukMer, EmausBot, H3llBot, Mlang.Finn, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes,
BZTMPS, Toccata quarta, Jhimmane, A86EH and Anonymous: 32
• Bishop’s Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop’{}s_Opening?oldid=750506197 Contributors: Arvindn, Jao, No Guru,
Galaxy07, Sonjaaa, Zfr, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Shanes, Yurik, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Sam Sloan, Cobblet, SmackBot, Shalom
Yechiel, Ligulembot, RiseRover, Rigadoun, Tws45, JAnDbot, The Transhumanist, Pawnkingthree, Idioma-bot, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne,
OTAVIO1981, JL-Bot, Bob1960evens, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Luckas-
bot, AnomieBOT, Unara, Citation bot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, HRoestBot, RedBot, Double sharp, Ripchip Bot,
Ihardlythinkso, Neutrophil, Green Rain, Jkmaskell, Toccata quarta, FoCuSandLeArN, Facultative, GretDrabba and Anonymous: 23
• Portuguese Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Opening?oldid=641784077 Contributors: Arvindn, Lostkiwi, Ze-
roOne, Quale, Bubba73, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Ri st, Anonywiki, STBotD, Idioma-bot, Goliadkin, Sun
Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, Kelisa English, Citation bot, Spaideris, Xqbot, Adrignola, BukMer, CABAR, EmausBot,
ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 3
• King’s Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Gambit?oldid=753999632 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Furrykef, Gren-
delkhan, Thue, Asparagus, Giftlite, Djinn112, No Guru, Andycjp, Sonjaaa, Danko Georgiev, Bob.v.R, Klin~enwiki, ThreeE, ZeroOne, El
C, Sietse Snel, Gene Nygaard, LukeSurl, WilliamKF, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, GregorB, Male1979, Audiovideo, Sjakkalle, Koavf, Quale,
Bubba73, Matt Deres, YurikBot, RussBot, Van der Hoorn, Frederick R, Krakatoa, Cinik, Mike Dillon, Cobblet, SmackBot, McGed-
don, The Gnome, Chris the speller, TimBentley, Whispering, Srue, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, JudahH, Rodrigo Novaes, Banedon,
Grj23, Gagueci, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Zickzack, Useazebra, Mack2, Tws45, HolyT, Michig, Rothorpe, Hedgeh0g, Albmont, Baccyak4H,
J mareeswaran, Pawnkingthree, FrankEldonDixon, Use the force, Idioma-bot, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, MaxBrowne, Scottywong, SieBot,
Termgrauzis, Rodrigo170988, Jojalozzo, Vanadamme, ClueBot, Wysprgr2005, Dejvas, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Mlaffs, Rossen4,
Chesslover96, ChessA4, Addbot, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Zorrobot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Materialscientist, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Mr-
sHudson, GrouchoBot, SassoBot, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, Khb33, Mydimle, Frogsterking, Double sharp, TobeBot, Jthemphill, TjBot,
Subvert47, Grondilu, A2soup, Other Choices, H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Wukai, Frietjes, Green Rain, SverreJ0, Rayous, Toc-
cata quarta, Boeing720, MyTuppence, Burninthruthesky, GretDrabba, Monkbot, Muhammad Areez, Bender the Bot and Anonymous:
108
• Fischer Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Gambit%2C_Fischer_Defense?oldid=641781379 Contributors: Green-
man, Danko Georgiev, CanisRufus, Quale, Bubba73, Quuxplusone, Krakatoa, Lumaga, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, RomanSpa, Rodrigo
Novaes, Microbe20504, Stuzart, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Legobot II, MrsHudson, Ehird, Adrignola,
BukMer, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, NickWoolner and Anonymous: 18
• Falkbeer Countergambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Gambit%2C_Falkbeer_Countergambit?oldid=694588662
Contributors: Recury, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot, Krakatoa, Myasuda, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, Voorlandt, SieBot, Blahblah5555, Mild Bill
Hiccup, Sun Creator, ChessA4, Addbot, Dawynn, SpBot, Yobot, Ulric1313, MrsHudson, Bruce Edward Williams, Adrignola, BukMer,
Hushpuckena, Dinamik-bot, Jesse V., KosmoKnot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, KLBot2, Boeing720 and
Anonymous: 7
• Rice Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Gambit%2C_Rice_Gambit?oldid=730604505 Contributors: Quale,
Bubba73, Krakatoa, Brittle heaven, Banedon, SieBot, Euryalus, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, MrOllie, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ul-
ric1313, MrsHudson, BukMer, D'ohBot, Aschwole, Billwall2, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 5
• Center Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_Game?oldid=750158133 Contributors: Arvindn, Cyde, Robbot, Binand, Dis-
cospinster, ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73, Metropolitan90, Msikma, Alphatango~enwiki, Tcsetattr, Cobblet, SmackBot, Colonies Chris,
Shalom Yechiel, Banedon, Thijs!bot, Escarbot, .anacondabot, LordAnubisBOT, Idioma-bot, TXiKiBoT, SieBot, Goliadkin, Sun Cre-
ator, Addbot, Rapanui73, Tassedethe, Kiril Simeonovski, Luckas-bot, Yobot, ArthurBot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, FrescoBot,
RedBot, Double sharp, Alzarian16, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Jkmaskell, InternetArchiveBot and Anonymous: 13
312 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

• Danish Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Gambit?oldid=744295154 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Arvindn, GCarty,

Byrial, ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, JoanneB, FrozenPurpleCube, McGeddon, Fetofs, Colonies Chris,
Tsca.bot, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Theghaz, Alan.ca, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Hwiechers, Tws45, LordAnubisBOT, Oliver-hh, Idioma-bot,
VolkovBot, ThomasSFL, Mehmet Karatay, Molineux, OTAVIO1981, Artichoker, M4gnum0n, Sun Creator, Dthomsen8, Balokrop~enwiki,
Addbot, Tsauce32~enwiki, Newfraferz87, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Ulric1313, Citation bot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola,
BukMer, Khb33, RedBot, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, MathKeduor7, KJBIBLE1611, Bender the Bot and Anonymous:
27
• Lopez Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopez_Opening?oldid=641781578 Contributors: ThreeE, ZeroOne, Mairi, Quale,
Bubba73, Titoxd, Frigoris, SmackBot, YellowMonkey, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, Cream147, Useight, Idioma-bot, OTAVIO1981, Sun
Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Coolguy123456789, Yobot, Againme, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Pete Hobbs, Ihardlythinkso,
Frietjes and Anonymous: 8
• Napoleon Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Opening?oldid=683834401 Contributors: Rl, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle,
Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Frederick R, Shalom Yechiel, Hvn0413, Escarbot, Pawnkingthree, Idioma-bot, Karophyr, AlleborgoBot,
OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, AndersBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Locobot, Adrignola, BukMer, Emaus-
Bot, Pete Hobbs, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, MyTuppence and Anonymous: 7
• Parham Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danvers_Opening?oldid=753571242 Contributors: Arvindn, Mike Rosoft, ThreeE,
ZeroOne, Causa sui, Troels Nybo~enwiki, Eleland, Quale, Bubba73, Eiad77, Gurch, Frederick R, Krakatoa, LauroMoura, Zwobot, Crisco
1492, Cobblet, SmackBot, KnowledgeOfSelf, Shalom Yechiel, Ioannes Pragensis, Zappernapper, Xeno, LittleOldMe old, Anonywiki,
VolkovBot, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, Smallbox, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, El bot de la dieta, Aitias, Maztaim, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory,
Addbot, Xp54321, Jasper Deng, Mischeifmaker, Katten2008, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Squeaker44, Ptbotgourou, AnomieBOT, Mr-
sHudson, Almabot, Adrignola, BukMer, Chess analyzer, Electricmaster, Grondilu, Ne0romantic, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Anentiresleeve,
BG19bot, Rayous, ChessPlayerLev, Cyberbot II, Fegelmeister1977, Lugia2453, OGBranniff, DavidLeighEllis, Babythegreat, Fishface gurl,
Monkbot, InternetArchiveBot, Chess SuperGM, Frenchie1309, GreenC bot and Anonymous: 34
• Vienna Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Game?oldid=694127942 Contributors: Camembert, Ixfd64, Phil Boswell,
MathMartin, Neilc, ThreeE, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot, YurikBot, Spike Wilbury, Kraka-
toa, Ospalh, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Dweller, Eskimbot, Bluebot, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Cosmosearcher, Eastfrisian,
Banedon, Thijs!bot, DaQuirin, Nick Number, Escarbot, Armkang, Baccyak4H, Bot-Schafter, Anonywiki, MaxBrowne, OTAVIO1981,
JL-Bot, Swedish fusilier, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Addbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Mann jess, Citation bot, Mr-
sHudson, 550Brock, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Double sharp, TobeBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot,
RainerZufall, MyTuppence, Makecat-bot, Francois-Pier and Anonymous: 24
• Frankenstein-Dracula Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Game%2C_Frankenstein-Dracula_Variation?oldid=
702402819 Contributors: Camembert, Sannse, Evercat, Dale Arnett, Hadal, Cyrius, Estel~enwiki, Aequo, Bumm13, Vague Rant, Ze-
roOne, Albinomonkey, Themindset, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), CygnusPius, Totalnewbie, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa,
Brittle heaven, Shalom Yechiel, Lambiam, Otto4711, Dvandersluis, Anonywiki, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Addbot, Lightbot, Greg
Holden 08, AnomieBOT, Kelisa English, Mann jess, MrsHudson, Double sharp, CarlesMartin, Mentac, Gengis Gat, Ihardlythinkso, Friet-
jes, Enono46, Toccata quarta and Anonymous: 22
• Alapin’s Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alapin’{}s_Opening?oldid=727866318 Contributors: ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73,
Krakatoa, Cobblet, Bryan Nguyen, Bluebot, Shalom Yechiel, Localzuk, ThePacker, Myasuda, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, HolyT, The Transhuman-
ist, Michig, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, Goliadkin, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Zagothal,
Citation bot, Adrignola, BukMer, LegesRomanorum, Dcirovic, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 14
• French Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Defence?oldid=751819826 Contributors: Zundark, Arvindn, Camembert,
Pizza Puzzle, Robbot, RedWolf, Cornellier, Aidfarh, EvanED, No Guru, Gamaliel, Zaphod Beeblebrox, Andris, Matt Crypto, Neilc, Chow-
bok, Andycjp, PhDP, ThreeE, Byrial, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Chi Sigma, CanisRufus, Gilgamesh he, Causa sui, Shenme, Viriditas, La goutte
de pluie, Grahbudd, Knucmo2, WhiteC, Adrian.benko, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, GregorB, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot,
Dje123, WarmasterKron, Nylex, YurikBot, Gavinwilson, Introgressive, Krakatoa, Calaschysm, Cobblet, KnightRider~enwiki, Thegn,
TimBentley, Silly rabbit, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Ioscius, Courcelles, Telrod, Cryptic C62, Wfaxon, Thijs!bot, Chipka, Xolom,
SmokeyTheCat, Mack2, JAnDbot, Magioladitis, AaronCBurke, Omerzu, Albmont, Anonywiki, Manuel0302, Pawnkingthree, Dinochess3,
Idioma-bot, Black Kite, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, Anna Lincoln, MaxBrowne, Broadbot, Synthebot, Shirleyepaul, WereSpielChequers, Fric-
asso, Abhishikt, Anchor Link Bot, Loren.wilton, Kanesue, ClueBot, Newzild, Swedish fusilier, Auntof6, Sun Creator, Baoball, Rossen4,
Against the current, Matma Rex, Addbot, Ronhjones, LaaknorBot, Renatokeshet, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Mohsenkazempur, Yoavd,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Kwanzaa12, Materialscientist, ArthurBot, Spaideris, Lefthandsketch, MrsHudson, Gilo1969, BarryNL,
Dirrival, PeskyGnat, IShadowed, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Þjóðólfr, RedBot, Orenburg1, Castor Affairé, Alzarian16, Bluek-
ingj, EmausBot, Laszlovszky András, Faolin42, ZéroBot, Bendayan, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Checkrepublic, Helpful Pixie
Bot, BG19bot, Jb31415, Toccata quarta, Proxyma, BattyBot, He to Hecuba, Makecat-bot, Francois-Pier, ASM999, Chess SuperGM,
Frenchie1309, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 118
• Caro-Kann Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caro%E2%80%93Kann_Defence?oldid=736830743 Contributors: Zundark,
Camembert, Ewen, Michael Hardy, Gabbe, Nikai, Robbot, No Guru, Neilc, Andycjp, MartinBiely, ThreeE, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Gil-
gamesh he, Fermatprime, Causa sui, CygnusPius, Gestrin, Fenya~enwiki, Zoz, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Tommy Kronkvist, FlaBot,
DVdm, YurikBot, Red Slash, Bergsten, Msikma, Ejdzej, Krakatoa, Cinik, Nikkimaria, Cobblet, M'vy, Bluewave, SmackBot, J carrillo
vii, KocjoBot~enwiki, TimBentley, Silly rabbit, Brittle heaven, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Mitrius, MCWNT, Atkinson 291, Jeupham,
Duduong, Rogerborg, ShelfSkewed, Thijs!bot, Chipka, RaNdOm26, Tws45, JAnDbot, Michig, SyG, Baccyak4H, STBot, Maurice Car-
bonaro, Anonywiki, Lyctc, Philip Trueman, TXiKiBoT, Oshwah, Rei-bot, Tobiasverhulst, MaxBrowne, Zain Ebrahim111, SieBot, Dark-
nessEnthroned, Abhishikt, Sophia91, LetsReason, Ghostface2292, Sun Creator, Dontmentionit, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Gmeiner, Addbot,
Colibri37, Ronhjones, LaaknorBot, FiriBot, Jellevc, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Snowinmelbourne, Neptune5000,
Materialscientist, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Kleiner, MrsHudson, Pmlineditor, PeskyGnat, RibotBOT, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Citation
bot 1, HRoestBot, RedBot, MastiBot, Trappist the monk, Rbidegain, TjBot, Parkywiki, ZéroBot, Ebrambot, Maxim11maxim, Scientific29,
Ihardlythinkso, HandsomeFella, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Jkmaskell, Toccata quarta, Proxyma, Royalblue64, JHarryP, Francois-Pier,
Monkbot, Puzzlesbrony777, Faranan2030, E1e10p and Anonymous: 77
• Pirc Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirc_Defence?oldid=729215817 Contributors: Camembert, JakeVortex, Meelar,
Djinn112, No Guru, Neilc, Karl-Henner, Sam Hocevar, ZeroOne, Jannex, Jacobolus, GregorB, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin,
13.1. TEXT 313

WTHarvey, Nicholasink, YurikBot, Frederick R, Introgressive, Krakatoa, Georgeslegloupier, Cobblet, KnightRider~enwiki, SmackBot,
Unyoyega, Colonel Tom, Wkargel, Whispering, Shalom Yechiel, Mitrius, Cryptic C62, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot, Narssarssuaq, Michig, SyG,
Albmont, Baccyak4H, SwiftBot, Lenin333, Dinochess3, FrankEldonDixon, VolkovBot, MaxBrowne, JhsBot, Jose Fernandez-Calvo, Road-
creature, SieBot, Swedish fusilier, Sun Creator, J.Gowers, Rossen4, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Rjsolcruz, LaaknorBot, Tassedethe, Lightbot,
Matěj Grabovský, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, PeskyGnat, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Citation
bot 1, RedBot, TjBot, Bounce1337, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Slimepot636, Frietjes, Delusion23, Green Rain, Actuaryesquire, Archrith,
Toccata quarta, Makecat-bot, Wywin, Archvenison, ♥Golf, Shreyas61196, Chess SuperGM, Vwermisso and Anonymous: 38
• Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirc_Defence%2C_Austrian_Attack?oldid=723763005 Contribu-
tors: Sasata, Cryptic C62, Mack2, Piledhigheranddeeper, Sun Creator, J.Gowers, Luckas-bot, Yobot, PeskyGnat, EmausBot, Dcirovic,
Ihardlythinkso, Slimepot636, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 1
• Balogh Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balogh_Defense?oldid=641771935 Contributors: H Padleckas, ZeroOne, Bubba73,
Krakatoa, Felix III, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, The Transhumanist, Voorlandt, Sun Creator, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 2
• Scandinavian Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Defense?oldid=749406311 Contributors: Camembert,
Gentgeen, Isopropyl, No Guru, Adam McMaster, Neilc, Andycjp, Sonjaaa, ThreeE, Rich Farmbrough, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Wareh,
Eleland, Ronark, Jacobolus, BD2412, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot, DVdm, Miconian, YurikBot, Introgressive, Krakatoa,
Jemptymethod, Cobblet, Eskimbot, Silly rabbit, Colonies Chris, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Dnheff, Rodrigo Novaes, CapitalR, Tawkerbot2,
Jlowery, Rnickel, Thijs!bot, Tgok, Nick Number, Goldenband, Tws45, JAnDbot, SyG, Baccyak4H, No-genius, Pawnkingthree, FrankEl-
donDixon, Mrabinowitz, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, SieBot, Belthor, Newzild, Betaben, Lartoven, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Ad-
dbot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Greg Holden 08, Rubinbot, Ulric1313, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer,
Hushpuckena, Citation bot 1, HRoestBot, CarlesMartin, WikitanvirBot, Dcirovic, Grondilu, ZéroBot, Status, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG,
Frietjes, Green Rain, MathKeduor7, Editorinator, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Proxyma, MyTuppence, KJBIBLE1611, Bender the Bot
and Anonymous: 54
• Nimzowitsch Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimzowitsch_Defence?oldid=742479458 Contributors: Robbot, Neilc, Son-
jaaa, ZeroOne, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Nihiltres, RussBot, Frederick R, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Shalom Yechiel,
Gustave G., VanWiel, Thijs!bot, WinBot, JAnDbot, TAnthony, Baccyak4H, Rei-bot, MaxBrowne, Randy Kryn, Sun Creator, XLinkBot,
Lab-oratory, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, JackieBot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Einheitlix, Adrignola, BukMer, Emaus-
Bot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mr. Guye, Barnabas1717, Chessmasterguy, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous:
20
• Alekhine’s Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alekhine’{}s_Defence?oldid=753819017 Contributors: Zundark, Camembert,
Furrykef, No Guru, Neilc, Sonjaaa, Mschlindwein, ThreeE, Bender235, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Gilgamesh he, Fermatprime, Amontero,
La goutte de pluie, Lectonar, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, Tmassey, Fenya~enwiki, Josh Parris, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, WTHarvey, Yurik-
Bot, Hede2000, Frederick R, Krakatoa, Tonywalton, Wknight94, Cobblet, Kgf0, Eskimbot, Colonel Tom, Chris the speller, TimBentley,
Caissa’s DeathAngel, Brittle heaven, Verrai, Drkirkby, Shalom Yechiel, Courcelles, Banedon, WeggeBot, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot, The Transhu-
manist, Michig, Dmvalio, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, Msavere, Serprex, SieBot, BotMultichill, Underdoggum, Swedish fusilier,
M4gnum0n, PixelBot, Sun Creator, SchreiberBike, Rossen4, DumZiBoT, Chesslover96, Power2084, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Download,
CarsracBot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Trizob, GrouchoBot, RibotBOT, WebCiteBOT,
Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, I dream of horses, Double sharp, Ripchip Bot, Subvert47, EmausBot, John of Reading, ZéroBot,
Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Wukai, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Laanders, Legolover26, Toccata quarta, Khazar2,
Twyndylyng, Freeze3 and Anonymous: 54
• Modern Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Defense?oldid=735570255 Contributors: Djinn112, No Guru, Neilc, Ze-
roOne, Chi Sigma, Velho, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, WTHarvey, Nicholasink, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Georgeslegloupier,
Cobblet, Melchoir, Brittle heaven, Shalom Yechiel, Thijs!bot, Nick Number, SwiftBot, Idioma-bot, VolkovBot, Rossen3, GBizzle, Flyer22
Reborn, WilhelmHH~enwiki, Randy Kryn, Swedish fusilier, PixelBot, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Ronhjones, Lightbot, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, ChristopheS, ArthurBot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Adrignola, FrescoBot, TjBot, ZéroBot, ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot
NG, Frietjes, Smcker, Heronils, Mscoobs, SeanG007, Willneibergall and Anonymous: 23
• Monkey’s Bum Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Defense%2C_Monkey’{}s_Bum?oldid=641422248 Contributors: Ze-
roOne, Bubba73, Georgeslegloupier, Skittle, Dsreyn, Melchoir, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Tawkerbot2, Myasuda, WinBot, J.delanoy,
Anonywiki, GBizzle, Rhododendrites, DOI bot, Lightbot, Yobot, MrsHudson, FrescoBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, KWiki, Monkbot and
Anonymous: 7
• Owen’s Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen’{}s_Defence?oldid=739742830 Contributors: ZeroOne, Bobo192, Alan-
sohn, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Miastko, Krakatoa, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Fvasconcellos, Thijs!bot, Michig,
Xeno, Acroterion, Rjbox, Anonywiki, Pawnkingthree, Voorlandt, Quantpole, Roadcreature, Randy Kryn, Sun Creator, Rossen4,
Chesslover96, Addbot, Ronhjones, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Newportm, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot,
MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Louperibot, Alexander.kure, Double sharp, Updatehelper, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Haegint, Ihardlythinkso,
Frietjes, Toccata quarta, Pocorod11, Edgemen, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 23
• St. George Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Defence?oldid=752291735 Contributors: Andycjp, AxSkov, Ze-
roOne, RoyBoy, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, Cantthinkofagoodname, Celestianpower, YurikBot, Frederick R, Introgressive,
Krakatoa, Cobblet, SmackBot, Hydrogen Iodide, Hmains, Shalom Yechiel, Thijs!bot, Mentifisto, SmokeyTheCat, SyG, Chromancer, Alle-
borgoBot, Soler97, AMackenzie, Drmies, Fivesided, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Steak, Mro, Luckas-bot, Turbine27, Ulric1313,
Gsmgm, Adrignola, Full-date unlinking bot, Alzarian16, Ihardlythinkso, Whoop whoop pull up, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Chess Su-
perGM, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 13
• Queen’s Pawn Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Pawn_Game?oldid=720328677 Contributors: No Guru, Andycjp,
Bob.v.R, Karol Langner, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle, Koavf, Quale, S Chapin, Bubba73, Cobblet, TimBentley, Whispering, Shalom
Yechiel, Amarande, Rigadoun, Thijs!bot, Matthew Proctor, Escarbot, SyG, Black Kite, TXiKiBoT, Rei-bot, MaxBrowne, AlleborgoBot,
SieBot, Joe Gatt, Sophia91, Elassint, Swedish fusilier, Niceguyedc, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Mm40, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
ArthurBot, Xqbot, Adrignola, HRoestBot, Mentac, Alzarian16, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Maxim11maxim, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Primergrey,
Toccata quarta, MyTuppence, ASM999 and Anonymous: 25
314 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

• Closed Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_Game?oldid=640968300 Contributors: Isnow, Quale, Bubba73, Cydebot,

Thijs!bot, DaQuirin, Hmrox, Idioma-bot, SieBot, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, Addbot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Adrignola, EmausBot,
ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Shreyas61196 and Anonymous: 7
• Semi-Closed Game Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Closed_Game?oldid=640966789 Contributors: Quale, Bubba73, Kraka-
toa, Colonies Chris, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Idioma-bot, SE7, Sun Creator, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous:
4
• Queen’s Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Gambit?oldid=752265874 Contributors: Zundark, Camembert,
Marteau, Furrykef, Ed g2s, Lowellian, Jarashi, Dbenbenn, DocWatson42, Djinn112, No Guru, Neilc, Zeimusu, Sonjaaa, H Padleckas,
Felix Wan, ZeroOne, Gilgamesh he, Adrian.benko, Jacobolus, Hbdragon88, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Srleffler, Roboto de Ajvol,
YurikBot, Frederick R, Krakatoa, Cobblet, SmackBot, Colonies Chris, Tsca.bot, Shalom Yechiel, Matchups, Ravenous75, Kingscrusher,
Eastfrisian, WilliamJE, Chantessy, Fugli, JamesAM, Thijs!bot, Emeraldcityserendipity, Storkk, SyG, Albmont, Gundato, DWAnderson,
Idioma-bot, Lights, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Steven J. Anderson, MaxBrowne, Zain Ebrahim111, YonaBot, Cwkmail, Abhishikt, Sun Cre-
ator, Chesslover96, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Kiril Simeonovski, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, ArthurBot, Spaideris, Xqbot, MrsHudson,
Adrignola, Hushpuckena, MastiBot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Movses-bot, Frietjes, MathKe-
duor7, Helpful Pixie Bot, The Gaon, Monkbot, SaxXiz, RiotGrrrl86, HaveFunAllDay100, Bender the Bot, Wer8olf and Anonymous: 39
• Queen’s Gambit Accepted Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Gambit_Accepted?oldid=752265881 Contributors: Michael
Hardy, Robbot, Jarashi, No Guru, Gdr, Iansk, B.d.mills, ZeroOne, Shanes, Sietse Snel, Evil Monkey, BlankVerse, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi,
Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Richardcavell, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Silly rabbit, Colonies Chris, Shalom
Yechiel, SubSeven, WilliamJE, Banedon, Thijs!bot, Mack2, SyG, Twsx, J.delanoy, AlleborgoBot, Badvibes101, SieBot, Sbowers3, Randy
Kryn, SpikeToronto, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Mortense, HerculeBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Hushpuckena,
Citation bot 1, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Primergrey, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Toccata quarta, Asd36f,
Viridians, Monkbot, Surface wall, Bender the Bot, Wer8olf and Anonymous: 39
• Queen’s Gambit Declined Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Gambit_Declined?oldid=743143859 Contributors: Zundark,
Greenman, La Minturnesa, Giftlite, No Guru, Ukexpat, Thorwald, ZeroOne, Robnock, Brian Merz, Kbdank71, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73,
YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Jasón, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Silly rabbit, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Jlowery, Teagtera, Ma-
gioladitis, SyG, Rugops, Anonywiki, Idioma-bot, Rossen3, MaxBrowne, SieBot, Joe Gatt, Sophia91, Sasha Krotov, Farannan, Sun Creator,
T71024, Rossen4, Gollenaiven, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Ettrig, Aldibibable, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Shotcallerballerballer, Citation bot, Spaideris,
MrsHudson, SassoBot, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, BigDwiki, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Gburger1296, H3llBot, ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso,
Snotbot, Frietjes, Theopolisme, BG19bot, Toccata quarta, BattyBot, MyTuppence, Earl0016, Monkbot, Yeh000 and Anonymous: 38
• Cambridge Springs Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Gambit_Declined%2C_Cambridge_Springs_Defense?
oldid=641784139 Contributors: DrZukhar, Quale, Bubba73, Cjpuffin, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, OTAVIO1981, Rossen4, Lab-oratory,
Addbot, Lightbot, Yobot, MrsHudson, BukMer, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Monkbot and Anonymous: 7
• Tarrasch Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrasch_Defense?oldid=732104275 Contributors: No Guru, ZeroOne,
Woohookitty, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Felix III, Zwobot, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, RobotJcb, Shalom Yechiel,
Thijs!bot, MartinBot, Anonywiki, Idioma-bot, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Matěj Grabovský, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Preobrazhenskiy, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Wikinetman, Citation bot 1, ZéroBot, Nightsideoflife,
ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, Mjbmrbot, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Green Rain, BG19bot, Toccata quarta, Francois-Pier and Anonymous:
13
• Marshall Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Defense?oldid=702639851 Contributors: Camembert, ZeroOne, Brian
Merz, Sjakkalle, Koavf, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, Red 81, Rossen3, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-
oratory, Addbot, Aldibibable, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ulric1313, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, RedBot, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, H3llBot,
Ihardlythinkso, Solemnechidna, Frietjes, Green Rain, BG19bot, Makecat-bot, Jltmtz, SaxXiz and Anonymous: 11
• Baltic Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Defense?oldid=673086088 Contributors: Arvindn, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle,
Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, MTSbot~enwiki, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, The Transhu-
manist, STBotD, Black Kite, Rei-bot, Voorlandt, Joe Gatt, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, MystBot, Addbot, Fyrael,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, JackieBot, ArthurBot, Spaideris, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, BukMer, FrescoBot, Citation bot 1, RedBot, EmausBot,
Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, RynMasters and Anonymous: 10
• Slav Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav_Defense?oldid=731995949 Contributors: Arvindn, Jao, No Guru, Ato, Bob.v.R,
ZeroOne, Causa sui, Foobaz, Anthony Appleyard, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, That Guy, From
That Show!, SmackBot, Nickst, Silly rabbit, Brittle heaven, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, RTejedor, VanWiel, Escarbot, SyG, Albmont,
Baccyak4H, Hmshiau, Idioma-bot, Cbigorgne, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Mohsenkazempur, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ulric1313, Cita-
tion bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Bzmarko, JaysonSunshine, ZéroBot, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain,
Toccata quarta, Hasire, Epicgenius, ASM999 and Anonymous: 33
• Semi-Slav Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Slav_Defense?oldid=691819671 Contributors: Bkell, No Guru, Galaxy07,
Neilc, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Chvsanchez, Velho, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Nicholasink, Krakatoa, Shalom Yechiel, Rubisco~enwiki, Ge-
neofinterest, SyG, Baccyak4H, Theroadislong, MaxBrowne, Derekcslater, Rodrigo170988, Kotniski, Pakaraki, Sun Creator, Rossen4,
Lab-oratory, Addbot, Willking1979, Jlueke, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Materialscientist, LilHelpa, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Columbiarvrgorge,
Adrignola, Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, HRoestBot, WikitanvirBot, Zerkroz, ZéroBot, Aschwole, Mentibot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful
Pixie Bot, Legolover26, Toccata quarta, GeneralizationsAreBad and Anonymous: 29
• Symmetrical Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetrical_Defense?oldid=641787725 Contributors: Arvindn, Matthead,
ZeroOne, Jacobolus, Quale, Bubba73, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, TAMilo, Baccyak4H, Lilac Soul, Sun Creator,
Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Aldibibable, Luckas-bot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, RedBot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardly-
thinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, BattyBot, Makecat-bot and Anonymous: 9
• Chigorin Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chigorin_Defense?oldid=671148991 Contributors: Zundark, Evercat, ZeroOne,
Quale, YurikBot, Holzi, Cobblet, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Idioma-bot, TXiKiBoT, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, MystBot,
Addbot, Rapanui73, SpBot, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot,
Adrignola, HRoestBot, RedBot, JamesMazur22, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Jkmaskell, Toccata quarta, Makecat-bot
and Anonymous: 14
13.1. TEXT 315

• Albin Countergambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albin_Countergambit?oldid=648198800 Contributors: Eyrian, ZeroOne,

Guaca, Keenan Pepper, Hbdragon88, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, WTHarvey, Krakatoa, Ihendley, SmackBot, Gyrobo, Shalom Yechiel,
Localzuk, Thijs!bot, YukiCuss, The Transhumanist, Idioma-bot, Voorlandt, OTAVIO1981, Sasha Krotov, Artichoker, PixelBot, Sun Cre-
ator, Rossen4, Addbot, Download, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Unara, Citation bot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, SassoBot,
Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Citation bot 1, RedBot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, JasjotSingh Malhotra
and Anonymous: 18
• Indian Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Defence?oldid=738227533 Contributors: Atlan, Mukerjee, ZeroOne, Nabla,
Art LaPella, Foobaz, Isnow, Quale, Bubba73, Wisedog, Quuxplusone, DVdm, Jimp, Krakatoa, Richardcavell, Cobblet, SmackBot, Shalom
Yechiel, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Gioto, JAnDbot, Roman à clef, SyG, Fconaway, Philcha, Pawnkingthree, DorganBot, Idioma-bot, TXiKiBoT,
Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, Abhishikt, Swedish fusilier, Auntof6, Alexbot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, DOI bot, LaaknorBot, Tassedethe,
Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski, Luckas-bot, Yobot, 9258fahsflkh917fas, Citation bot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Locobot, Einheitlix, Adrignola,
BukMer, Kiwikibble, Elockid, Pete Hobbs, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, DBigXray, Toccata quarta, BattyBot,
MyTuppence, Wer8olf and Anonymous: 22
• Trompowsky Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompowsky_Attack?oldid=752406812 Contributors: AxelBoldt, JamesM-
Lane, H Padleckas, ESkog, ZeroOne, Chvsanchez, Stemonitis, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, That Guy, From That
Show!, Roberto Cruz, Shalom Yechiel, Fuhghettaboutit, Banedon, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, Liquid-aim-bot, Whatteaux, LordAnubisBOT,
MaxBrowne, Undoubtedly0, Randy Kryn, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Kelisa English, Citation bot, Xqbot,
MrsHudson, BukMer, Hushpuckena, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Chessbloke, Faranan2030, ASM999, Freeze3, Bosley
John Bosley and Anonymous: 23
• King’s Indian Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Indian_Defence?oldid=735625724 Contributors: Webhat,
Giftlite, Djinn112, No Guru, Neilc, Sonjaaa, ZeroOne, Fermatprime, Kingsindian, Knucmo2, Meleos~enwiki, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale,
Bubba73, WTHarvey, YurikBot, Conscious, Krakatoa, Santaduck, Cobblet, Silly rabbit, Whispering, Brittle heaven, Colonies Chris, Shalom
Yechiel, Brainfood, Ford Prefect 2, VanWiel, JackMcJiggins, Thijs!bot, David aukerman, Awilley, Michig, TAnthony, SyG, Albmont,
Baccyak4H, FrankEldonDixon, Mostlygone, Tobiasverhulst, Glorfindel83, Yvonne the barber, Barbacot, Mightymax1, SieBot, Bryan Dug-
gan, Derekcslater, Matthew Yeager, DarknessEnthroned, Hxhbot, WilhelmHH~enwiki, PipepBot, Swedish fusilier, Crywalt, Sun Creator,
Rossen4, Sixhobbits, Addbot, Lightbot, Mohsenkazempur, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Latest Incarnation,
Adrignola, Hushpuckena, TjBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, Francois-Pier, GretDrabba,
Monkbot, VishBK and Anonymous: 58
• King’s Indian Defence, Four Pawns Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Indian_Defence%2C_Four_Pawns_
Attack?oldid=711330743 Contributors: Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Shalom Yechiel, Slakr, Cream147, Michig, SyG, Perlnerd666,
Bughunter2, Sun Creator, Chesskelvin, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Hushpuckena, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes,
BG19bot, Monkbot and Anonymous: 16
• East Indian Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Indian_Defence?oldid=641773886 Contributors: Jao, Bubba73, Cobblet,
SmackBot, Thijs!bot, SyG, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Adrignola, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, KWiki and Anonymous: 4
• Grünfeld Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnfeld_Defence?oldid=737327009 Contributors: Camembert,
Dwheeler, Robbot, Webhat, No Guru, Neilc, Bob.v.R, Mukerjee, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Gene Nygaard, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale,
Bubba73, WTHarvey, OpenToppedBus, YurikBot, Wavelength, Yrithinnd, Welsh, Krakatoa, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot,
Whispering, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Pfhyde, Banedon, Thijs!bot, Golf Bravo, Baccyak4H, Vygotcha, STBotD, Black Kite,
VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, JhsBot, Glorfindel83, SieBot, Huzzahmaster018, Sun Creator, Addbot, Johannesbjarki,
Tassedethe, Kiril Simeonovski, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Citation bot, ArthurBot, GrandMattster, MrsHudson, Sirgorpster, GrouchoBot, Adrig-
nola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, John85, DrilBot, TjBot, JaysonSunshine, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Grondilu, ZéroBot, H3llBot,
ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, Khazar2, Makecat-bot, GretDrabba, Monkbot and Anony-
mous: 46
• Grünfeld Defence, Nadanian Variation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnfeld_Defence%2C_Nadanian_Variation?
oldid=738812752 Contributors: Alansohn, Rjwilmsi, Bubba73, Reedy, Hmains, Brittle heaven, VartanM, VZakharov, Sun Creator,
Yobot, BEPETEHO, Emildaed, AnomieBOT, Kelisa English, Ulric1313, LilHelpa, MrsHudson, PeskyGnat, Locobot, Adrignola, Buk-
Mer, DrilBot, I Do Care, Kolobochek, Yegishe, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Toccata quarta, Forgot to put name,
Monkbot, GreenC bot and Anonymous: 6
• Queen’s Indian Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Indian_Defense?oldid=658958323 Contributors: Zundark,
Webhat, Diberri, Djinn112, No Guru, ZeroOne, Cburnett, Jacobolus, GregorB, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Abu Amaal, Conscious,
Zwobot, Cobblet, That Guy, From That Show!, Colonel Tom, Whispering, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, JohnCD, Thijs!bot, Qwyrxian,
Albmont, Tedickey, Baccyak4H, Ahjulsta, Pawnkingthree, VolkovBot, MaxBrowne, Swedish fusilier, Sun Creator, Addbot, Johannesbjarki,
Tassedethe, Gebminds, Luckas-bot, Yobot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, EmausBot, WikitanvirBot, ZéroBot,
H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Jkmaskell, Toccata quarta, MyTuppence, Epicgenius and Anonymous:
34
• Neo-Indian Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Indian_Attack?oldid=740579114 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough,
BD2412, Sjakkalle, Bubba73, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Joe Gatt, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Yobot, GrouchoBot, Adrignola,
Erik9bot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 6
• Torre Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_Attack?oldid=709255629 Contributors: Camembert, No Guru, ZeroOne, Can-
isRufus, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Ioscius, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, Yurell, Head-
bomb, Black Kite, Ilfuria.awt, Blahblah5555, Sun Creator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Yobot, ArthurBot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer,
Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Toccata quarta, Francois-Pier, Monkbot and Anonymous: 19
• Nimzo-Indian Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimzo-Indian_Defence?oldid=748320107 Contributors: Zundark,
Camembert, Gbroiles, Cyde, RedWolf, Lupin, No Guru, Andris, Matt Crypto, SWAdair, Wmahan, Neilc, Klin~enwiki, ZeroOne, Canis-
Rufus, Ronark, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, WTHarvey, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, That Guy, From That Show!, Silly rabbit,
DoctorW, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Senor Pooop, VanWiel, SyG, Hbent, Anonywiki, Idioma-bot, R00723r0, VolkovBot, Takuya
Kanbara, Chesschampion, AlleborgoBot, Mightymax1, Hxhbot, WilhelmHH~enwiki, Swedish fusilier, Sun Creator, Addbot, Johannesb-
jarki, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Citation bot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Haskell.0, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Mentac,
TjBot, Alph Bot, LegesRomanorum, Pete Hobbs, GFHund, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Toccata quarta,
MyTuppence, RynMasters, Monkbot, Tigercompanion25, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 54
316 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

• Bogo-Indian Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogo-Indian_Defence?oldid=641772160 Contributors: Camembert,

Djinn112, Jao, No Guru, Andris, Wmahan, Neilc, ZeroOne, Ronark, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Zwobot, SmackBot, Colonel
Tom, Verrai, Shalom Yechiel, Fuhghettaboutit, Red 81, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot, The Transhumanist, Baccyak4H, JhsBot, AlleborgoBot,
OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, Addbot, Johannesbjarki, LaaknorBot, BepBot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Kyu-
casio, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta and Anonymous: 21
• Old Indian Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Indian_Defense?oldid=641262045 Contributors: Camembert, Andycjp,
ZeroOne, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, Moskvax, Nylex, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Shalom Yechiel, Cream147, Thijs!bot, Perlnerd666,
Namtaru, Black Kite, SieBot, OTAVIO1981, Rossen4, Addbot, Download, LaaknorBot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Homobot, Xqbot,
MrsHudson, PeskyGnat, BukMer, Hushpuckena, BenzolBot, EmausBot, Solarra, Maxim11maxim, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie
Bot, Toccata quarta, THE PITZ of the project, Monkbot and Anonymous: 11
• Budapest Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Gambit?oldid=746319770 Contributors: Arvindn, Adam78, DocWat-
son42, No Guru, H Padleckas, Salvadors, ZeroOne, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, GünniX, YurikBot, Jpbowen,
Krakatoa, DeadEyeArrow, Cobblet, NeilN, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Sasata, ChrisCork, CmdrObot, Bane-
don, Wfaxon, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Mack2, Darklilac, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, The Transhumanist, SyG, JPG-GR, Gallicrow, Oliver-
hh, Pawnkingthree, DorganBot, FrankEldonDixon, Inwind, TreasuryTag, TXiKiBoT, Certiorari, Voorlandt, Broadbot, Runewiki777,
OTAVIO1981, Derekcslater, BotMultichill, Neil Parker, Hobartimus, Anakin101, Meisterkoch, Swedish fusilier, Ikaria, Ftbhrygvn, Sun
Creator, Iohannes Animosus, BOTarate, Aitias, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Hot200245, Favonian, Zorrobot, Yobot, Gongshow, AnomieBOT,
Ulric1313, Citation bot, LilHelpa, Gensanders, MrsHudson, BukMer, Cekli829, Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, DrilBot, RjwilmsiBot, TjBot,
Alzarian16, John of Reading, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, ‫ראובן פלג‬, NordhornerII, Green Rain, MathKeduor7, Helpful Pixie Bot,
BG19bot, Monkbot, Faranan2030, 00ff00 and Anonymous: 37
• Black Knights’ Tango Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knights’{}_Tango?oldid=729088051 Contributors: Arvindn,
Camembert, Mike Rosoft, ZeroOne, Cdc, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Gdrbot, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Colonel Tom, Shalom Yechiel, The
Transhumanist, TAnthony, AlexiusHoratius, FrankEldonDixon, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, PipepBot, Newzild, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-
oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Hushpuckena, RedBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and
Anonymous: 9
• Catalan Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Opening?oldid=729306065 Contributors: Camembert, Charles
Matthews, RedWolf, Asparagus, Giftlite, No Guru, Neilc, Sonjaaa, Bob.v.R, Boone, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Causa sui, Sjakkalle, Quale,
Bubba73, Colonel Tom, Tonipares, Drkirkby, Shalom Yechiel, Banedon, Yrodro, VanWiel, Txomin, Baccyak4H, TXiKiBoT, Rei-bot,
MaxBrowne, SieBot, Randy Kryn, Niceguyedc, Sun Creator, Rossen4, DumZiBoT, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Democrati-
cLuntz, Shotcallerballerballer, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Sirgorpster, BukMer, EmausBot, John of Reading, Bootvis, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso,
Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Garybekker, Toccata quarta, SkateTier, Cupo89 and Anonymous: 26
• Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmar%E2%80%93Diemer_Gambit?oldid=751489596 Contribu-
tors: Aofl, Sonjaaa, Bob.v.R, ThreeE, Byrial, ZeroOne, Chvsanchez, BlankVerse, Quale, Bubba73, Cjpuffin, YurikBot, Eskimbot, Beta-
command, Bluebot, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, CmdrObot, Banedon, Mack2, Tws45, The Transhumanist, Newbie1412, Anonywiki,
AlexLane, StAnselm, Khvalamde, Artichoker, Sun Creator, HarrivBOT, Rossen4, XLinkBot, SilvonenBot, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot,
Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Nicholas Fahy, AnomieBOT, ChristopheS, Mikerowe2, Citation bot, MrsHudson, KommX, GrouchoBot,
Adrignola, BukMer, Jlaire, Hobbes Goodyear, EmausBot, Pete Hobbs, H3llBot, Mlang.Finn, Ihardlythinkso, Cwmhiraeth, Frietjes, Help-
ful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Jkmaskell, Toccata quarta, Blnocchi, ChrisGualtieri, ASM999 and Anonymous: 43
• Alapin-Diemer Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Defence?oldid=751819826 Contributors: Zundark, Arvindn,
Camembert, Pizza Puzzle, Robbot, RedWolf, Cornellier, Aidfarh, EvanED, No Guru, Gamaliel, Zaphod Beeblebrox, Andris, Matt Crypto,
Neilc, Chowbok, Andycjp, PhDP, ThreeE, Byrial, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Chi Sigma, CanisRufus, Gilgamesh he, Causa sui, Shenme, Viriditas,
La goutte de pluie, Grahbudd, Knucmo2, WhiteC, Adrian.benko, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, GregorB, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73,
FlaBot, Dje123, WarmasterKron, Nylex, YurikBot, Gavinwilson, Introgressive, Krakatoa, Calaschysm, Cobblet, KnightRider~enwiki,
Thegn, TimBentley, Silly rabbit, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Ioscius, Courcelles, Telrod, Cryptic C62, Wfaxon, Thijs!bot, Chipka,
Xolom, SmokeyTheCat, Mack2, JAnDbot, Magioladitis, AaronCBurke, Omerzu, Albmont, Anonywiki, Manuel0302, Pawnkingth-
ree, Dinochess3, Idioma-bot, Black Kite, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, Anna Lincoln, MaxBrowne, Broadbot, Synthebot, Shirleyepaul,
WereSpielChequers, Fricasso, Abhishikt, Anchor Link Bot, Loren.wilton, Kanesue, ClueBot, Newzild, Swedish fusilier, Auntof6, Sun
Creator, Baoball, Rossen4, Against the current, Matma Rex, Addbot, Ronhjones, LaaknorBot, Renatokeshet, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski,
Mohsenkazempur, Yoavd, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Kwanzaa12, Materialscientist, ArthurBot, Spaideris, Lefthandsketch, MrsHud-
son, Gilo1969, BarryNL, Dirrival, PeskyGnat, IShadowed, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Þjóðólfr, RedBot, Orenburg1, Castor Af-
fairé, Alzarian16, Bluekingj, EmausBot, Laszlovszky András, Faolin42, ZéroBot, Bendayan, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG,
Checkrepublic, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Jb31415, Toccata quarta, Proxyma, BattyBot, He to Hecuba, Makecat-bot, Francois-Pier,
ASM999, Chess SuperGM, Frenchie1309, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 118
• Diemer-Duhm Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Defence?oldid=751819826 Contributors: Zundark, Arvindn,
Camembert, Pizza Puzzle, Robbot, RedWolf, Cornellier, Aidfarh, EvanED, No Guru, Gamaliel, Zaphod Beeblebrox, Andris, Matt Crypto,
Neilc, Chowbok, Andycjp, PhDP, ThreeE, Byrial, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Chi Sigma, CanisRufus, Gilgamesh he, Causa sui, Shenme, Viriditas,
La goutte de pluie, Grahbudd, Knucmo2, WhiteC, Adrian.benko, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, GregorB, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73,
FlaBot, Dje123, WarmasterKron, Nylex, YurikBot, Gavinwilson, Introgressive, Krakatoa, Calaschysm, Cobblet, KnightRider~enwiki,
Thegn, TimBentley, Silly rabbit, Colonies Chris, Shalom Yechiel, Ioscius, Courcelles, Telrod, Cryptic C62, Wfaxon, Thijs!bot, Chipka,
Xolom, SmokeyTheCat, Mack2, JAnDbot, Magioladitis, AaronCBurke, Omerzu, Albmont, Anonywiki, Manuel0302, Pawnkingth-
ree, Dinochess3, Idioma-bot, Black Kite, TXiKiBoT, Voorlandt, Anna Lincoln, MaxBrowne, Broadbot, Synthebot, Shirleyepaul,
WereSpielChequers, Fricasso, Abhishikt, Anchor Link Bot, Loren.wilton, Kanesue, ClueBot, Newzild, Swedish fusilier, Auntof6, Sun
Creator, Baoball, Rossen4, Against the current, Matma Rex, Addbot, Ronhjones, LaaknorBot, Renatokeshet, Lightbot, Kiril Simeonovski,
Mohsenkazempur, Yoavd, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Kwanzaa12, Materialscientist, ArthurBot, Spaideris, Lefthandsketch, MrsHud-
son, Gilo1969, BarryNL, Dirrival, PeskyGnat, IShadowed, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Þjóðólfr, RedBot, Orenburg1, Castor Af-
fairé, Alzarian16, Bluekingj, EmausBot, Laszlovszky András, Faolin42, ZéroBot, Bendayan, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG,
Checkrepublic, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Jb31415, Toccata quarta, Proxyma, BattyBot, He to Hecuba, Makecat-bot, Francois-Pier,
ASM999, Chess SuperGM, Frenchie1309, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 118
• London System Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_System?oldid=751151680 Contributors: Merovingian, Sjakkalle, Quale,
Bubba73, Krakatoa, SmackBot, Accurizer, West coast, Cryptic C62, Alaibot, Altamel, MaxBrowne, Johnanth, Randy Kryn, Sun Cre-
ator, Lab-oratory, Addbot, AnomieBOT, Xqbot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, BukMer, Jaxdelaguerre, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso,
ClueBot NG, Frietjes, WikiPuppies, ChrisGualtieri, Monkbot, ASM999, Blackmar-Diemer and Anonymous: 20
13.1. TEXT 317

• Richter-Veresov Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter-Veresov_Attack?oldid=641787021 Contributors: Camembert, No

Guru, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Bubba73, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, VolkovBot, Pixel-
Bot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Ronald Reuel, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ulric1313, ArthurBot, MrsHudson, Adrig-
nola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Aschwole, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Toccata quarta,
Ralmoritz, Monkbot and Anonymous: 9
• Benoni Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoni_Defense?oldid=751702056 Contributors: Zundark, Evercat, Webhat, Ev-
eryking, No Guru, Bob.v.R, ZeroOne, Wareh, BD2412, Sjakkalle, Quale, Biederman, Bubba73, YurikBot, Gaius Cornelius, Cobblet, Bob
Hu, Marc Kupper, Colonies Chris, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Eastfrisian, Smile a While, Vanjagenije, CKaL, The Transhumanist, Alb-
mont, Baccyak4H, Calidore Chase, Anonymous Dissident, Voorlandt, SieBot, Cwkmail, Sasha Krotov, Swedish fusilier, Farannan, Sun
Creator, SchreiberBike, Akavall, Rossen4, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckyz, Luckas-bot, Yobot, JRB-Europe, Citation bot, ArthurBot, MrsHud-
son, Adrignola, A.amitkumar, Hushpuckena, Haeinous, ElNuevoEinstein, Double sharp, Trappist the monk, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihard-
lythinkso, Borman63, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, QuantumElf, Signedzzz, Wikiraven65 and Anonymous:
33
• Benko Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benko_Gambit?oldid=729083703 Contributors: Zundark, Rmhermen, Camembert,
Komap, Eric119, RedWolf, No Guru, Bob.v.R, DragonflySixtyseven, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Causa sui, Tabletop, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle,
Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, Gangster Octopus, WTHarvey, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, VodkaJazz, Ilmari Karonen, Eskimbot, Alan
McBeth, Chris the speller, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Aiwendil42, ShelfSkewed, Thijs!bot, Sherbrooke, Escarbot, The Transhuman-
ist, TAnthony, Baccyak4H, Whatteaux, LordAnubisBOT, Idioma-bot, Harfarhs, Ilfuria.awt, Rei-bot, MaxBrowne, Billinghurst, SieBot,
OTAVIO1981, Tommetje, Sun Creator, Iohannes Animosus, SilvonenBot, Addbot, DOI bot, Tassedethe, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot,
MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, MondalorBot, EmausBot, Dcirovic, Ihardlythinkso, Robnator, Frietjes, Green Rain, Help-
ful Pixie Bot, AvocatoBot, Toccata quarta, DocFido, Monkbot, KasparBot and Anonymous: 25
• Blumenfeld Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumenfeld_Gambit?oldid=690562946 Contributors: Quale, FlaBot, Tim-
Bentley, Oceanh, The Transhumanist, TAnthony, A4bot, MaxBrowne, Alexbot, Sun Creator, Addbot, LaaknorBot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Cekli829, Hushpuckena, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, AvocatoBot, ChrisGualtieri,
Monkbot and Anonymous: 2
• English Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence?oldid=641773940 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, Quale,
Krakatoa, Addbot, Luckas-bot, FrescoBot, Fryedk, Jesse V., Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Arunprasathame and Anonymous:
7
• Keres Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keres_Defence?oldid=641781337 Contributors: Jao, R. fiend, Rich Farmbrough,
Mhowkins, ZeroOne, Tabor, Sjakkalle, Quale, Frenchman113, Bubba73, Falphin, Krakatoa, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Thegn,
Shalom Yechiel, Thijs!bot, Magioladitis, Black Kite, VolkovBot, AlleborgoBot, Smartlypretty7, PixelBot, Rhododendrites, Sun Creator,
Pokernikus, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Locobot, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Compo2, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Toc-
cata quarta and Anonymous: 8
• Dutch Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Defence?oldid=743244927 Contributors: Camembert, Robbot, Djinn112,
No Guru, Andris, Neilc, Hayne, Roybb95~enwiki, Samboy, Bender235, ZeroOne, CygnusPius, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73,
WTHarvey, Roboto de Ajvol, YurikBot, Frederick R, Krakatoa, Cobblet, RobotJcb, Thegn, Whispering, Brittle heaven, Sim man, Shalom
Yechiel, Ligulembot, SubSeven, Farangfrog, Courcelles, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Mack2, 100110100, TAnthony, Albmont, Baccyak4H, Fruit-
Monkey, The Interloafer, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Jasper Deng, Vysotsky, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, Galoubet, Neptune5000, Shotcallerballerballer, Citation bot, MrsHudson, SassoBot, Adrignola, BukMer, Thehelpfulbot, Red-
Bot, SpaceFlight89, Trappist the monk, Skitheboat1216, Ripchip Bot, Dcirovic, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, Movses-bot, Frietjes,
Primergrey, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta, Twyndylyng, Monkbot, ASM999, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 30
• Staunton Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staunton_Gambit?oldid=651156931 Contributors: Quale, Bubba73, Van der
Hoorn, Krakatoa, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Thegn, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, Alan.ca, Banedon, VanWiel, Tws45, Sun Creator,
Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Cekli829, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Ugncreative
Usergname and Anonymous: 4
• Queen’s Knight Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Knight_Defense?oldid=715770013 Contributors: Andycjp,
Chrislee, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Shalom Yechiel, SyG, Idioma-bot, Ilfuria.awt, Sun Creator, Chesslover96, Lab-
oratory, Addbot, Shotcallerballerballer, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Alzarian16, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Mr. Guye and Anonymous:
1
• Englund Gambit Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englund_Gambit?oldid=722768490 Contributors: Arvindn, Camembert, H
Padleckas, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, RussBot, Krakatoa, That Guy, From That Show!, Basalisk, Shalom Yechiel, Sobreira,
Mack2, Tws45, Tilla, Srushe, Lightmouse, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Kelisa English, Citation bot,
Xqbot, MrsHudson, Locobot, Adrignola, BukMer, DivineAlpha, Citation bot 1, Pitlane02, Dcirovic, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Lowercase
sigmabot, Makecat-bot, Ginsuloft, K9re11 and Anonymous: 18
• Polish Defense Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Defense?oldid=735600963 Contributors: Kpalion, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Canis-
Rufus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Miastko, RussBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Appleseed, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, TimBentley, Shalom
Yechiel, Eastfrisian, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Escarbot, TAMilo, SyG, Manderiko, Mufka, VolkovBot, Ilfuria.awt, Hsf-toshiba, Sphilbrick, Sun
Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, JackieBot, Citation bot, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, TjBot, H3llBot, Ihardly-
thinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, KLBot2, Cliff12345, BattyBot and Anonymous: 5
• Wade Defence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Defence?oldid=687942334 Contributors: ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Rjwilmsi,
Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, Krakatoa, FrozenPurpleCube, SmackBot, Colonel Tom, Shalom Yechiel, Pawnkingthree, Ilfuria.awt, Sun Cre-
ator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Tassedethe, Luckas-bot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, EmausBot, Pete Hobbs, Ihardly-
thinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 6
• Flank opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flank_opening?oldid=728330817 Contributors: Quale, Bubba73, Cobblet, Hmains,
Whispering, Cydebot, Thijs!bot, Idioma-bot, VolkovBot, Sun Creator, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Citation bot 1,
ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mrjulesd, Francois-Pier, ASM999 and Anonymous: 4
• Larsen’s Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen’{}s_Opening?oldid=752096243 Contributors: Arvindn, David Edgar, No
Guru, Andycjp, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Yonkie, Madzane, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Frederick R, Krakatoa, Cinik, Cob-
blet, KnightRider~enwiki, DCGeist, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, ThePacker, JoeBot, Banedon, Myasuda, VanWiel, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot,
318 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Lady Mondegreen, Randy Kryn, ClueBot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, SilvonenBot, Menthaxpiperita, Addbot, MrOllie, Lightbot,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Mr. Comodor, Citation bot 1, HRoestBot, Double sharp,
LegesRomanorum, ZéroBot, Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Tkarcher, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Shreyas61196,
Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 31
• English Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Opening?oldid=752822223 Contributors: Zundark, Camembert,
Francs2000, Robbot, Webhat, Asparagus, Ludraman, Djinn112, Andris, Edcolins, Neilc, Andycjp, Modargo, Rubicon, ZeroOne, Gil-
gamesh he, RJFJR, Gene Nygaard, Jacobolus, GregorB, Mandarax, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Kmorozov, YurikBot, Red Slash, DanMS,
Krakatoa, Acwazytomato, Cobblet, Eskimbot, Colonies Chris, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, DaDoc540, DanQuigley, MTSbot~enwiki, East-
frisian, CmdrObot, Dynzmoar, Banedon, Mack2, Michig, Rothorpe, Magioladitis, JNW, Albmont, Baccyak4H, Mokru, STBotD, A4bot,
Anonymous Dissident, MaxBrowne, Synthebot, Abhishikt, WilhelmHH~enwiki, Alexbot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Arbitrarily0,
Mohsenkazempur, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Ulric1313, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Locobot, Adrignola, BukMer, WHPratt,
Hushpuckena, FoxBot, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Brandmeister, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, MathKeduor7,
Helpful Pixie Bot, ZirconiumX, Toccata quarta, Cliff12345, Cyberbot II, Francois-Pier, Monkbot, King Nook, Bender the Bot and Anony-
mous: 64
• Bird’s Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird’{}s_Opening?oldid=751342752 Contributors: Camembert, No Guru, Neilc,
ThreeE, Byrial, Modargo, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Art LaPella, Themindset, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, DoubleBlue, Falphin,
WarmasterKron, YurikBot, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Cobblet, SmackBot, Silly rabbit, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Birdsf4, Ligulem-
bot, Cantoni~enwiki, Mibelz, CharlotteWebb, Matthew Proctor, Mack2, JAnDbot, The Transhumanist, SyG, Albmont, Baccyak4H,
Pawnkingthree, Use the force, Chessnerd, Deevrod, Newzild, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, XLinkBot, Lab-oratory, Addbot,
Opus88888, SpBot, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Legobot II, MrsHudson, Adrignola, FrescoBot, RedBot,
Lotje, CarlesMartin, Auxysfox, EmausBot, ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Green Rain, ChrisGualtieri, Dylanvt,
DocFido, Lugia2453, Wikiew, Tjust85, Shreyas61196, King Nook, BirdNinjas, BirdInformator, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 47
• Benko’s Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King’{}s_Fianchetto_Opening?oldid=752205763 Contributors: Arvindn, Dino,
Sonjaaa, ZeroOne, Circeus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, JulesH, Höyhens, SmackBot, Ppntori, Shalom Yechiel, Eastfrisian, CapitalR,
ShelfSkewed, Cream147, Thijs!bot, The Transhumanist, Rothorpe, Spinach Dip, Rei-bot, Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, OTAVIO1981, Swedish
fusilier, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Addbot, Ronald Reuel, Lightbot, Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Spaideris, Xqbot, MrsHud-
son, Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, Double sharp, Bounce1337, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mrjulesd,
Kaigew and Anonymous: 21
• Zukertort Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zukertort_Opening?oldid=727891440 Contributors: Dino, Sjakkalle, Quale,
Bubba73, Sandstein, Cobblet, SmackBot, EdGl, Tedickey, JaGa, Randy Kryn, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Spaideris, MrsHudson, Ribot-
BOT, Citation bot 1, A412, RjwilmsiBot, EmausBot, Phoenixthebird, ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Aguada, Toccata quarta,
Phobos4798, Kevin12xd and Anonymous: 8
• Réti Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9ti_Opening?oldid=726044800 Contributors: Dino, Cyrius, No Guru,
Neilc, Sonjaaa, ThreeE, ZeroOne, Nsaa, Ronark, Jacobolus, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot, YurikBot, Cobblet, NeilN,
David A Bozzini, SmackBot, Silly rabbit, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, MTSbot~enwiki, VanWiel, SyG, Baccyak4H, SwiftBot, TXiKiBoT,
SieBot, Randy Kryn, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Spaideris, Xqbot, MrsHudson, J04n, BarryNL, Adrig-
nola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, HRoestBot, MastiBot, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Green Rain, Helpful Pixie Bot, Toccata quarta,
Chessmesiter and Anonymous: 37
• Irregular chess opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_chess_opening?oldid=744233137 Contributors: Lir, Dominus,
Eric119, Jod, Frieda, Dysprosia, Jmartinezot, Lord Emsworth, Andris, Neilc, Sonjaaa, ZeroOne, Giraffedata, Themindset, Sjakkalle,
Melanogaster~enwiki, Quale, Bubba73, Quicksilvre, Krakatoa, Cobblet, SmackBot, Xaosflux, Chris the speller, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel,
Ligulembot, Cream147, VanWiel, DumbBOT, Thijs!bot, EdJohnston, MaxBrowne, AlleborgoBot, Sun Creator, BOTarate, DumZiBoT,
Addbot, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, Citation bot 1, RedBot, RjwilmsiBot,
EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Whoop whoop pull up, Frietjes, Jkmaskell, Mrjulesd, Bever, Sam Sailor, Monkbot and Anonymous:
13
• Anderssen’s Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderssen’{}s_Opening?oldid=641771837 Contributors: Arvindn, ZeroOne,
Rishiboy, Sjakkalle, HaZe~enwiki, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Łukasz M. P. Pastuszczak, Sim man,
Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, MTSbot~enwiki, Eastfrisian, CmdrObot, Thijs!bot, JAnDbot, The Transhumanist, Csbarrett, Voorlandt, Sun
Creator, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Ptbotgourou, Csigabi, Xqbot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola,
BukMer, Bounce1337, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Zeelur, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 14
• Ware Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_Opening?oldid=641760479 Contributors: Hoho~enwiki, Nickptar, ThreeE,
ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Circeus, Sjakkalle, HaZe~enwiki, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Willie on Wheiels, That Guy, From That Show!,
Colonel Tom, TimBentley, Sim man, Red 81, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, DumZiBoT, Chesslover96, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Citation bot,
Xqbot, Wzdew, Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Ugncreative Usergname
and Anonymous: 11
• Sokolsky Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokolsky_Opening?oldid=754044643 Contributors: Arvindn, Camembert, Lir,
Michael Hardy, Dominus, Eric119, KW~enwiki, Webhat, Dbenbenn, Andris, Neilc, Sonjaaa, Samboy, ZeroOne, VishalB, VivaEmily-
Davies, Dave.Dunford, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, HaZe~enwiki, Quale, Bubba73, Falphin, Russavia, Bgwhite, Roboto de Ajvol, The Rambling
Man, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Cinik, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Roberto Cruz, Chairman S., Bluebot, Colonies
Chris, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, MTSbot~enwiki, Red 81, JAnDbot, SyG, TXiKiBoT, JhsBot, OTAVIO1981, Hsf-toshiba,
Rhododendrites, Sun Creator, Masugly, SilvonenBot, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation bot, Xqbot, MrsHudson,
Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, I dream of horses, Double sharp, Bounce1337, EmausBot, ZéroBot, Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso,
Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Makecat-bot, GretDrabba, Monkbot, Vishwathg, Marektrokenheim and Anonymous: 17
• Saragossa Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saragossa_Opening?oldid=678372161 Contributors: Zundark, DavidWBrooks,
ThreeE, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Cobblet, FrozenPurpleCube, Smack-
Bot, Moez, TimBentley, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Red 81, SyG, TXiKiBoT, MaxBrowne, Gorpik, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator,
Chesslover96, Qgil-WMF, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, ArthurBot, Xqbot, MrsHudson,
Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, Balajiganapathi, HRoestBot, EleferenBot, ZéroBot, Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful
Pixie Bot, Royalblue64, Alexander Earlheart and Anonymous: 14
13.1. TEXT 319

• Mieses Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieses_Opening?oldid=746390510 Contributors: ZeroOne, Lovingboth,

Sjakkalle, Quale, S Chapin, Bubba73, Tommy Kronkvist, Krakatoa, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Rigadoun, WinterSpw, OTAVIO1981,
Sun Creator, PotentialDanger, DumZiBoT, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Mro, Luckas-bot, ArthurBot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer,
Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Dexbot, Skalnes and Anonymous: 8
• Van 't Kruijs Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_'t_Kruijs_Opening?oldid=728389817 Contributors: Furrykef,
Xyzzyva, Lucky 6.9, Andycjp, Bob.v.R, ZeroOne, JRM, Jacobolus, GregorB, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, BOT-Superzerocool,
Cobblet, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, MTSbot~enwiki, Kripkenstein, CapitalR, VanWiel, Travelbird,
Thijs!bot, SyG, Llamabr, MaxBrowne, Hsf-toshiba, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, DutchDevil, Lightbot,
Luckas-bot, Citation bot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, Alph Bot, Alzarian16, EmausBot, A2soup,
Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 13
• Barnes Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Opening?oldid=741862817 Contributors: Furrykef, Mattflaschen, Son-
jaaa, ZeroOne, Art LaPella, Tony Sidaway, Sjakkalle, HaZe~enwiki, Quale, Bubba73, Brighterorange, YurikBot, Welsh, BOT-
Superzerocool, Pathless, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, MTSbot~enwiki, Zickzack, The Transhumanist, SchumiUCD, Black Kite, Voorlandt,
MaxBrowne, VirtualEarth, Sun Creator, DumZiBoT, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, DOI bot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, EdwardLane,
Ptbotgourou, AnomieBOT, Csigabi, Xqbot, MrsHudson, GrouchoBot, PeskyGnat, Adrignola, Citation bot 1, Electricmaster, LegesRo-
manorum, Cobaltcigs, Rcsprinter123, Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, LogicalSpartan247, Klipsy
and Anonymous: 21
• Grob’s Attack Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob’{}s_Attack?oldid=737008456 Contributors: Arvindn, Dominus, Ihcoyc, Scott,
Haukurth, Sverdrup, Nickpelling, Sonjaaa, Bob.v.R, Bosmon, SocratesJedi, ZeroOne, Themindset, Jacobolus, Agthorr, Quale, Bubba73,
YurikBot, Van der Hoorn, Cryptic, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Sam Sloan, Cobblet, SmackBot, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot,
RBPierce, Red 81, Thijs!bot, DaQuirin, Just Chilling, Anonywiki, KylieTastic, VolkovBot, MaxBrowne, AlleborgoBot, OTAVIO1981,
Randy Kryn, Sun Creator, Benjamnjoel2, Addbot, Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, HelloAanglais, Citation bot, Terminatore, MrsHudson,
PeskyGnat, Locobot, Adrignola, Citation bot 1, Double sharp, Alph Bot, Tisane, Sorbitol, Fæ, A2soup, ZeFrogge, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie
Bot, Proxyma, Chess SuperGM and Anonymous: 22
• Clemenz Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemenz_Opening?oldid=751066251 Contributors: Nufy8, Mattflaschen, Ze-
roOne, Eleland, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Froid, MaxBrowne, Yvonne the
barber, Sun Creator, DumZiBoT, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, AndersBot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, SethBorgo, Ci-
tation bot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Hushpuckena, Citation bot 1, SpaceFlight89, Skitheboat1216, Bounce1337, EmausBot,
ChuispastonBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mandmeneertje and Anonymous: 10
• Desprez Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desprez_Opening?oldid=722778654 Contributors: Mattflaschen, ZeroOne,
Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, BOT-Superzerocool, Bob Hu, SmackBot, Mscuthbert, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot,
Tawkerbot2, VanWiel, ROFLcopter, Pawnkingthree, MaxBrowne, WikiBotas, Sun Creator, J.Gowers, DumZiBoT, Chesslover96, Lab-
oratory, ChessA4, Addbot, Tassedethe, Exiledragon, Zorrobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Citation bot, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Adrig-
nola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, Bounce1337, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Mark Arsten, Rayous, YFdyh-bot
and Anonymous: 17
• Durkin Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durkin_Opening?oldid=719652885 Contributors: ThreeE, ZeroOne, Sjakkalle,
Quale, Bubba73, Cjpuffin, Jdm, WarmasterKron, YurikBot, Krakatoa, Cobblet, Koor der, Shalom Yechiel, ThePacker, Anonywiki,
MaxBrowne, Banana Concoction, OTAVIO1981, Sun Creator, DumZiBoT, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Cita-
tion bot, Calmik, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, ZéroBot, A2soup, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, DocFido
and Anonymous: 8
• Dunst Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunst_Opening?oldid=737310299 Contributors: Arvindn, Korath, ThreeE, Rich
Farmbrough, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, BD2412, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, FlaBot, JdforresterBot, YurikBot, Spike Wilbury, Frederick
R, Introgressive, Krakatoa, SmackBot, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Gryffon, Myasuda, Thijs!bot, Chacor, SmokeyTheCat,
Michig, SyG, OTAVIO1981, Randy Kryn, ClueBot, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Citation
bot, ArthurBot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, BukMer, Citation bot 1, Double sharp, RjwilmsiBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Dexbot, Makecat-bot, DocFido, OGBranniff, Monkbot and Anonymous: 16
• Amar Opening Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Opening?oldid=737791839 Contributors: Arvindn, ZeroOne, CanisRufus,
Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Localzuk, Twelsht, Thijs!bot, The Transhumanist, Idioma-bot, Voorlandt,
OTAVIO1981, Svick, Sun Creator, Chesslover96, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Lightbot, Zorrobot, WikiDreamer Bot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Csigabi,
Citation bot, Adrignola, RjwilmsiBot, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Green Rain, BattyBot, GreenC bot and Anonymous:
9
• Fool’s mate Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool’{}s_mate?oldid=753307568 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, Camembert, Ellywa,
Evercat, Dysprosia, Fibonacci, Pakaran, Fredrik, Korath, Dbenbenn, Elf, RIUSABruce, Siroxo, Etaonish, Sonjaaa, Jodamiller, ThreeE,
Murtasa, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Andrejj, Shanes, Blotwell, Lokifer, Anthony Appleyard, Alfanje~enwiki, Eleland, Water Bottle, Gotroot801,
Ronark, Gene Nygaard, 0xHH~enwiki, LOL, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Vberger~enwiki, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Quale, Bubba73, EamonnPKeane,
YurikBot, Krakatoa, Xompanthy, Cinik, Fetofs, WDGraham, Shalom Yechiel, Ioscius, Minglex, Zepheus, Cydebot, OMGZ, Lugnuts,
Thijs!bot, Picus viridis, Darklilac, HolyT, Magioladitis, AsgardBot, Andy5421, DorganBot, VolkovBot, Wxy, TXiKiBoT, Rei-bot,
MaxBrowne, Psyche825, Rickbert, Abhishikt, PolarBot, ClueBot, Winston365, Sun Creator, Doopdoop, Benjamnjoel2, Addbot, HAMM,
Yobot, Materialscientist, Citation bot, TechBot, Adrignola, I dream of horses, Double sharp, EmausBot, Alexlatham96, Ihardlythinkso,
ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Primergrey, Helpful Pixie Bot, மதனாஹரன், Toccata quarta, Miszatomic, Epicgenius, Wwefan429, Monkbot, Fc-
nfgh and Anonymous: 49
• Scholar’s mate Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar’{}s_mate?oldid=729271272 Contributors: Arvindn, Camembert, AugPi,
Korath, Bkell, Dbenbenn, Ich, Siroxo, Etaonish, Vsmith, Murtasa, Dmr2, ZeroOne, Andrejj, Syp, Chvsanchez, Bobo192, BrokenSegue,
Blotwell, Anthony Appleyard, Melaen, 0xHH~enwiki, Jacobolus, Xiong Chiamiov, Radiant!, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Fred-
erick R, Krakatoa, Misza13, Zzuuzz, CapitalLetterBeginning, SmackBot, Valley2city, Shalom Yechiel, Sunnan, Ioscius, Avg, Insanephan-
tom, Guitarmankev1, Cydebot, Wfaxon, Thijs!bot, Picus viridis, Arcadina, Alexei Kopylov, Yonidebot, Dorearendil, Idioma-bot, Rei-bot,
Voorlandt, MaxBrowne, JESL2, Zain Ebrahim111, Karophyr, SieBot, Abhishikt, ClueBot, Artichoker, Dejvas, Sun Creator, Pirags, Jon-
neroo, Addbot, Jafeluv, Zorrobot, Yoavd, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Xqbot, Khajidha, Purpleturple, Rocalpi, Double sharp, Pilot850, Isildurion,
Salvio giuliano, Altice, Tommy2010, Ihardlythinkso, DASHBotAV, ClueBot NG, This lousy T-shirt, Brauden, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot,
BG19bot, Snow Rise, Rayous, Allermesuffit, Lugia2453, Purummy, Redobo98, Racer98, Andelous and Anonymous: 68
320 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

• Elephant Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Gambit_Declined%2C_Elephant_Trap?oldid=641422071 Contributors:

ZeroOne, Kappa, -Ril-, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, Thebloks, Krakatoa, SmackBot, Bluebot, Shalom Yechiel, J.delanoy, Petepetepetepete,
Artichoker, Addbot, Lightbot, Yobot, MrsHudson, Adrignola, ZéroBot, Shuipzv3, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Arjunkmohan and Anonymous:
8
• Halosar Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmar%E2%80%93Diemer_Gambit?oldid=751489596 Contributors: Aofl, Son-
jaaa, Bob.v.R, ThreeE, Byrial, ZeroOne, Chvsanchez, BlankVerse, Quale, Bubba73, Cjpuffin, YurikBot, Eskimbot, Betacommand,
Bluebot, TimBentley, Shalom Yechiel, CmdrObot, Banedon, Mack2, Tws45, The Transhumanist, Newbie1412, Anonywiki, AlexLane,
StAnselm, Khvalamde, Artichoker, Sun Creator, HarrivBOT, Rossen4, XLinkBot, SilvonenBot, MystBot, Addbot, Lightbot, Zorrobot,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Nicholas Fahy, AnomieBOT, ChristopheS, Mikerowe2, Citation bot, MrsHudson, KommX, GrouchoBot, Adrignola,
BukMer, Jlaire, Hobbes Goodyear, EmausBot, Pete Hobbs, H3llBot, Mlang.Finn, Ihardlythinkso, Cwmhiraeth, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot,
BG19bot, Jkmaskell, Toccata quarta, Blnocchi, ChrisGualtieri, ASM999 and Anonymous: 43
• Kieninger Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Gambit?oldid=746319770 Contributors: Arvindn, Adam78, DocWat-
son42, No Guru, H Padleckas, Salvadors, ZeroOne, Fenya~enwiki, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, GünniX, YurikBot, Jpbowen,
Krakatoa, DeadEyeArrow, Cobblet, NeilN, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Sim man, Shalom Yechiel, Sasata, ChrisCork, CmdrObot, Bane-
don, Wfaxon, Thijs!bot, Mibelz, Mack2, Darklilac, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, The Transhumanist, SyG, JPG-GR, Gallicrow, Oliver-
hh, Pawnkingthree, DorganBot, FrankEldonDixon, Inwind, TreasuryTag, TXiKiBoT, Certiorari, Voorlandt, Broadbot, Runewiki777,
OTAVIO1981, Derekcslater, BotMultichill, Neil Parker, Hobartimus, Anakin101, Meisterkoch, Swedish fusilier, Ikaria, Ftbhrygvn, Sun
Creator, Iohannes Animosus, BOTarate, Aitias, Lab-oratory, Addbot, Hot200245, Favonian, Zorrobot, Yobot, Gongshow, AnomieBOT,
Ulric1313, Citation bot, LilHelpa, Gensanders, MrsHudson, BukMer, Cekli829, Hushpuckena, FrescoBot, DrilBot, RjwilmsiBot, TjBot,
Alzarian16, John of Reading, ZéroBot, H3llBot, Ihardlythinkso, ‫ראובן פלג‬, NordhornerII, Green Rain, MathKeduor7, Helpful Pixie Bot,
BG19bot, Monkbot, Faranan2030, 00ff00 and Anonymous: 37
• Lasker Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albin_Countergambit%2C_Lasker_Trap?oldid=673059038 Contributors: Eric119,
ZeroOne, RJFJR, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Zwobot, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Binaryarbiter, Shalom
Yechiel, Jan.Kamenicek, DaQuirin, Husond, Artichoker, Pikez33, Sun Creator, Rossen4, Addbot, Lightbot, Yobot, Legobot II, Xqbot,
MrsHudson, A412, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 16
• Légal Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gal_Trap?oldid=750489376 Contributors: Eric119, Sam Hocevar, Mike
Rosoft, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, Isaac, Velho, Jacobolus, Sjakkalle, Quale, Bubba73, YurikBot, Mst~enwiki, Krakatoa, Jemptymethod,
SmackBot, Thumperward, RuudVisser, Shalom Yechiel, ArglebargleIV, Vanished user fj0390923roktg4tlkm2pkd, Smyslov, Thijs!bot,
Ncih, DaQuirin, Yonatan, Luna Santin, Maurice Carbonaro, Yonidebot, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, SieBot, Дарко Максимовић, Lightmouse,
Randy Kryn, Artichoker, Sun Creator, Eebster the Great, DumZiBoT, Addbot, Jasper Deng, Kiril Simeonovski, Mro, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
GrandMattster, MrsHudson, 4, John of Reading, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Monkbot, Thirtythreeforty, Resourcebull and
Anonymous: 21
• Magnus Smith Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Magnus_Smith_Trap?oldid=745180718 Contributors:
ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73, Krakatoa, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Magioladitis, Anonywiki, Pawnkingthree, Artichoker, Rossen4, Ad-
dbot, Lightbot, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Jonesey95, TjBot, Ihardlythinkso, ClueBot NG, Frietjes, Faranan2030 and Anonymous:
5
• Marshall Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrov’{}s_Defence%2C_Marshall_Trap?oldid=641784038 Contributors: Dmr2,
ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73, Borschevsky, Shalom Yechiel, Ligulembot, Addbot, Ulric1313, Citation bot, MrsHudson, ZéroBot, Ihardly-
thinkso, Frietjes and Anonymous: 4
• Monticelli Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogo-Indian_Defence%2C_Monticelli_Trap?oldid=663290696 Contributors:
Arvindn, Icairns, ZeroOne, Jeff3000, Quale, Bubba73, Scottzed, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Trixt, MaxBrowne, Addbot, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, Xqbot, MrsHudson, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, BG19bot, Toccata quarta and Anonymous: 3
• Mortimer Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez%2C_Mortimer_Trap?oldid=641787224 Contributors: Dmr2, Ze-
roOne, CanisRufus, Jeff3000, Quale, Bubba73, Banes, Krakatoa, Shalom Yechiel, J.Gowers, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Þjóðólfr,
EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, BattyBot and Anonymous: 7
• Noah’s Ark Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez%2C_Noah’{}s_Ark_Trap?oldid=698054419 Contributors: ZeroOne,
CanisRufus, Quale, Bubba73, Moskvax, Bob Hu, That Guy, From That Show!, Shalom Yechiel, Antediluvian67, Addbot, Yobot, Citation
bot, MrsHudson, RedBot, EmausBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, MaybeMaybeMaybe, Lemz0r and Anonymous: 5
• Rubinstein Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen’{}s_Gambit_Declined%2C_Rubinstein_Trap?oldid=719241174 Contrib-
utors: ZeroOne, Quale, Florian Huber, Krakatoa, That Guy, From That Show!, Shalom Yechiel, Voorlandt, Artichoker, Addbot, Lightbot,
Luckyz, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Jkmaskell and Anonymous: 3
• Siberian Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence%2C_Smith%E2%80%93Morra_Gambit%2C_Siberian_Trap?
oldid=749022541 Contributors: Rich Farmbrough, ZeroOne, CanisRufus, John Vandenberg, Xsspider, Jeff3000, Quale, Bubba73, Kraka-
toa, Wknight94, SmackBot, Shalom Yechiel, Thijs!bot, Cbigorgne, MaxBrowne, Tarltonp, InMooseWeTrust, Sun Creator, Addbot, Ci-
tation bot, Marc Schroeder, MrsHudson, Trappist the monk, Beyond My Ken, Ihardlythinkso, Spicemix, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot and
Anonymous: 4
• Tarrasch Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez%2C_Tarrasch_Trap?oldid=641421993 Contributors: Camembert, Ste-
fan64, ZeroOne, Bobo192, Quale, Bubba73, Victor falk, That Guy, From That Show!, Shalom Yechiel, HarrivBOT, Addbot, Lightbot,
Citation bot, MrsHudson, Zizomis, ZéroBot, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, Tazerdadog and Anonymous: 10
• Würzburger Trap Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Game%2C_W%C3%BCrzburger_Trap?oldid=666302996 Contribu-
tors: Dmr2, ZeroOne, Quale, Bubba73, Bgwhite, Cobblet, That Guy, From That Show!, Shalom Yechiel, Robofish, EinarSøndergaardRas-
mussen, Nhn~enwiki, Artichoker, Yobot, Citation bot, MrsHudson, Ihardlythinkso, Frietjes, KLBot2 and Anonymous: 1

13.2 Images
• File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work, based off of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs)
13.2. IMAGES 321

• File:Chess.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Chess.svg License: LGPL Contributors: http://ftp.gnome.

org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-themes-extras/0.9/gnome-themes-extras-0.9.0.tar.gz Original artist: David Vignoni
• File:Chess_bdt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Chess_bdt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
tributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_blt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Chess_blt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_kdt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Chess_kdt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_klt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Chess_klt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_ndt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Chess_ndt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_nlt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Chess_nlt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_pdt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Chess_pdt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
tributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_plt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Chess_plt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_qdt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Chess_qdt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
tributors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_qlt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Chess_qlt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_rdt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Chess_rdt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chess_rlt45.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Chess_rlt45.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contrib-
utors: This vector image was created with Inkscape. Original artist: en:User:Cburnett
• File:Chessboard480.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Chessboard480.svg License: CC0 Contributors:
Own work Original artist: ‫החבלן‬
• File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The
Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the file, specifically: “Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).”
• File:Fools_mate_animation.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Fools_mate_animation.gif License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: created automatically from wikipedia chess templates using Python and ImageMagick Original artist: winston365
• File:Khasin_1995_Bad_Liebenzell.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Khasin_1995_Bad_Liebenzell.
jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: GFHund
• File:Ksawery_Tartakower.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Ksawery_Tartakower.jpg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Planilha_Réti_e_Capablanca.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Planilha_R%C3%A9ti_e_
Capablanca.gif License: Public domain Contributors: http://dev.jaced.com:8080/htm/c/cbios/cbios_images/reticapa.gif Original artist:
unknown (probably by Reti since it uses the German algebraic chess notation
• File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
• File:Scholars_mate_animation.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Scholars_mate_animation.gif Li-
cense: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: Karophyr at English Wikipedia
• File:SyG_-_Budapest_Gambit_-_pressure_against_e3.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/SyG_-_
Budapest_Gambit_-_pressure_against_e3.gif License: GFDL Contributors: en:Wikipedia (log) Original artist: Sylvain Gadenne (talk)
• File:SyG_-_Budapest_gambit_-_rook_lift.gif Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/SyG_-_Budapest_
gambit_-_rook_lift.gif License: GFDL Contributors: en:Image:SyG - Budapest gambit - rook lift.gif Original artist: Sylvain Gadenne
(en:User:SyG)
• File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
• File:TrappedElephant.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/TrappedElephant.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: 'Sketches of the Natural History of Ceylon, with engravings from original drawings by Sir J. Emerson Tennent, 1861.
Original artist: Sir J. Emerson Tennent
• File:Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.
svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Bastique, User:Ramac et al.
• File:Wikibooks-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Wikibooks-logo-en.svg License: CC BY-
SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Bastique, User:Ramac et al.
322 CHAPTER 13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

13.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0